Can you give us some stories?

What was sometimes misunderstood and, and written about in a way that was totally misleading was that they said, "Well, who is this judge to arrogate to himself the ability to decide this case?" Well, a-and why did he get rid of a jury? Well, it, you don't have a jury when you're seeking injunctive relief.

It- it's not available.

It was always gonna be bench trial, and the lawyers, of course, knew that.

It's really important for lawyers to understand w-what they have.

Who are they playing to? And what they knew, I think, was that they had a generalist.

They had a judge who was not a specialist in any area of science particularly.

S-

And so that, Jeff, stay with us, 'cause that conversation is gonna continue. Let's bring into the conversation the former chief judge for the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, John E. Jones, and our CNN anchor and Chief Legal Analyst, Laura Coates. Judge Jones, I wanna start with you. Th- the judge consistently, repeatedly, in an exasperated tone, slamming the Justice Department, saying at one point they were using intemperate and disrespectful language. He said that was, quote, "Never seen from the United States." Uh, sounds like he's out of patience. What does that tell you?

(clears throat) Well, the first thing I was gonna say, uh, Jon, it's good to be with you, is that, uh, maybe the proclamation was signed, uh, by an autopen. Uh, uh, who knows? You know, and it's, it's void, uh, uh, from the time that it was signed. But seriously, on the question that you ask, this judge has a long, um, fuse, uh, i- in this, from the standpoint of judicial temperament. That fuse has clearly burned down, uh, and he's ready to go off. Uh, he's had enough. You know, what's happened all week is that the government is playing hide the ball. They're temporizing. They're, they're, uh, not answering the questions that he's put forward. They're making disingenuous arguments. And then today, of course, counsel for the government admitted, uh, that he did convey, uh, what was a, a, a verbal order from the judge, conceded that he knew that that was an order, and he conveyed that and that was that and the planes didn't turn around. So this is an evolving story, and it kinda has the, uh, allure of a slow-motion car crash as you look at it. But I think there's a further showdown coming, and he means to finish up, uh, what he started, which is this inquisition about whether his order was violated.

Uh, you know this quite well. Uh, you're right about the car crash metaphor, and you can see it in the transcripts, uh, about the tense, the tension, and the distrust between... But this judge also knows this is going to go up to an appellate court and probably make it to the Supreme Court. And so that record becomes critically important. So in that regard, what he says, how he talks about the law, how he asks about the law is absolutely essential. What do you make of his line of questioning as he was questioning the lead Justice Department attorney today?

Well, I think he's doing what any good judge would do, Jon, uh, under the circumstances. You know, the president's position's... First of all, the, the, the administration is deliberately misrepresenting the role of the judiciary and, and trying to, as you, uh, alluded to earlier, get up and over this legal debate by saying, "Well, these are bad people, and we should throw 'em out of the country," writing due process completely out of the equation. So what the judge is doing is he's, he's faced with the completely novel application of a 200-year-old statute. And, and he, he's saying, "I, it, it doesn't seem to fit. Uh, to me, it's a reach. We're not at war, uh, with Venezuela. You've, you haven't tied these gang members to anybody in the government. Uh, y- you know, I don't know who was on the plane. I don't know whether, uh, it was justified, even if you, uh, uh, apply the statute the way the, the government wants to, whether it's justified to take these guys out, you know, a- again simply because you say it is." And in the court of public opinion, I realize people say, "Well, they're bad guys, we wanna get 'em out of here." But these are due process rights that are enshrined in the Constitution of the United States. And, and I, I, I have to say Judge Boasberg, uh, has been a lot more patient than I might have been, you know, with the government this week in giving him till next Tuesday to invoke, uh, state secrets, which, quite frankly, if they had that, they should've produced it already.

... thanks very much. Joining me now is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig; former Chief Judge for the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, Johnny Jones; and CNN Political Commentator, Xochitl Hinojosa, former Director of Public Affairs at the Justice Department. Um, Jus- Judge Jones, how big a deal is Chief Justice's rebuke here?

It's a very big deal, Anderson. Because, uh, this is something that, uh, the, uh, very, uh, I think taciturn and mild-mannered Chief Justice, uh, uh, doesn't normally do as was noted, he did it back in 2018, as you said, uh, earlier. And it happened to be, uh, again triggered by Donald Trump. It's very remarkable. Um, the court typically doesn't wade into these types of disputes. Um, and, uh, the, the constant drumbeat of impeachment, uh, threats and in fact, uh, filings by the Congress, I think now have hit a nerve, uh, at the Supreme Court. So, it's, it's very, very remarkable.

Judge Jones, I mean, White House aides have been saying in recent days that federal district judges don't have the authority to rule against the president on a host of issues. Stephen Miller, uh, said, "Judges have no authority to administer the executive branch." What do you say to that?

I think, uh, Mr. Miller probably needs to take a civics lesson, because, uh, that, that's just patently untrue. I saw that interview, uh, and, um, you know, he, he got himself overheated, uh, talking about his version of what he thinks, uh, uh, judges can do and what jurisdiction they have. And Anderson, I gotta tell you something else that I think has been a little bit forgotten, and I find this interesting. Uh, President Trump's, uh, late sister who passed away a couple years ago, Maryanne Trump Barry, is a former United States District Judge, and then was put on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I happen to know her a bit. She was an excellent judge, a very decent person. Um, and, uh, you know, Donald Trump knows judges and he understands what judges do. Uh, and to intentionally misstate, as Mr. Miller and others in the White House have done, uh, what judges have the jurisdiction and the power to do, and to trivialize, uh, federal judges the way the administration is doing, they're playing a dangerous game here with, uh, with Judge Boasberg, you know, who set another deadline tomorrow. And this is like, you know, the force continuum. This is escalating day after day. So, tomorrow's gonna be another showdown. We'll see what happens.