U.S. District Judge James Boasberg is at the center of a dramatic legal confrontation with the Trump administration, following his finding of probable cause that administration officials acted in criminal contempt of court by defying his order to halt deportation flights of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
On March 15, Judge Boasberg issued both oral and written orders blocking the Trump administration from deporting a group of Venezuelan migrants under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a wartime statute that allows for the rapid expulsion of non-citizens deemed dangerous. Currently, the United States is not at war. Despite the order, the administration proceeded with two flights carrying over 130 individuals to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Boasberg’s opinion concluded that the administration’s actions demonstrated a “willful disregard” for the court’s authority. The judge noted the administration had ample opportunity to explain or rectify its conduct but failed to provide satisfactory responses.
Judge Boasberg stopped short of immediately holding any officials in contempt, instead giving the administration a chance to “purge” the contempt. This could be achieved by allowing the deported individuals to challenge their detention in U.S. courts—potentially without requiring their physical return to the United States—or by otherwise coming into compliance with the court’s order.
Should the administration fail to comply, Boasberg has indicated he will move forward with identifying the officials responsible, possibly requiring sworn declarations, depositions, or live testimony. If necessary, he could refer the matter for criminal prosecution, either by requesting the Justice Department to act or, if they decline, by appointing an independent attorney to pursue the case.
The Trump administration has resisted Boasberg’s actions, casting his threat of contempt proceedings as an overreach that exacerbates tensions between the executive and judicial branches. In filings to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department argued that Boasberg’s order intrudes on core executive powers, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, and accused the judge of attempting to “grab” authority beyond his jurisdiction.
However, the U.S. constitutional system does not grant the president unfettered authority over foreign affairs. While the president is the primary actor in foreign policy, both Congress and the courts have recognized roles.
The administration also disputes that it violated the court’s order, contending that the written order was entered after the flights had departed and suggesting that oral orders are not binding—a position Boasberg explicitly rejected in his ruling.
On April 18, a divided panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily paused Boasberg’s contempt inquiry, giving both sides deadlines to submit further arguments but not ruling on the merits of the case.
The government has until April 23 to respond to the court, with further replies due by April 25. If the administration fails to take action or name those responsible, Boasberg is prepared to advance the case further, potentially pursuing criminal contempt charges against top officials.
