MS NOW95%

Trump administration gets a court-imposed New Year’s resolution: Comply with due process80%

By Jordan Rubin0%

12/23/2025, 1:46:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Genetic Fallacy, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 40.6% saturation with 188 hits. Analysis detected 579 faulty-reasoning hits from 463 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.7% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,399 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.90% of the article peer group.

Judge James Boasberg gave the government two weeks to come up with a plan for how it will satisfy due process for Venezuelan migrants summarily deported to El Salvador. 
When the Trump administration sent hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison in March, it did so without first providing them due process to challenge their removals. 
A judge’s order this week gives the administration two weeks to submit a proposal for how to provide that process now. 
While relatively straightforward as a matter of law, it’s logistically complicated by the fact that the men are back in Venezuela after initially being sent to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, also known as CECOT (the subject of the infamously spiked “60 Minutes” segment). 
Therefore, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg gave the government options for how to proceed. 
He didn’t demand that the administration facilitate their return, as a judge famously did for Kilmar Abrego Garcia  though Boasberg gave that as one option to satisfy the government’s obligations. 
The Obama-appointed judge also said the government could “offer Plaintiffs a hearing without returning them to the United States so long as such hearing satisfied the requirements of due process.” 
The judge noted that some people might prefer to stay in Venezuela but that they needed the opportunity to assert their rights if they want to. 
“On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing. Our law requires no less,” he wrote in an opinion published Monday. 
Similarly, in rejecting the administration’s argument that the matter is moot, Boasberg pointed out that there are ongoing consequences from President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act against them as alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang. 
The judge noted that Trump’s proclamation carries restrictions, including barring U.S. entry and residence and subjecting them to property seizure and forfeiture. 
“If Plaintiffs were to succeed in their challenge to their designation as TdA members and alien enemies, these ongoing injuries would be remedied,” he wrote. 
Boasberg’s latest order in the long-running saga follows the recent thwarting  for now  of his inquiry into potential criminal contempt for officials who violated his order not to relinquish physical custody of the Venezuelans in El Salvador in March. 
The judge was set to take testimony in his contempt inquiry earlier this month, before an appellate panel with two Trump appointees in the majority put the proceedings on hold while it further considers the administration’s appeal. 
The contempt issue is separate from Boasberg’s latest order requiring the provision of due process, but given the government’s resistance to the judge’s orders throughout this litigation, the government’s compliance remains to be seen. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Jordan Rubin: 8.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 40.6%Jordan Rubin: 21.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect40.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Jordan Rubin: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 40.6%Jordan Rubin: 14.8%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias40.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 4.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 7.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%Jordan Rubin: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy14.5%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 3.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

463 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.