WASHNGTON — A federal judge pressed Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli on Monday over why the Trump administration did not comply with his order to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, sparking tensions between the government and the judiciary.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg stated it was "a heck of a stretch" for the government to argue it could ignore his directive to turn around planes carrying deportees still in the air. This dialogue occurred during a "fact-finding" hearing held on Monday, March 17, 2025.
The judge's remarks come after he issued verbal instructions on Saturday, March 15, to turn around any aircraft still inbound with deportees after the administration attempted to expel over 200 individuals, some of whom were purported gang members. His decision came on the heels of President Trump invoking the 18th century Alien Enemies Act, which allows for the swift deportation of individuals deemed threats to national security.
During Monday's hearing, Kambli maintained the Trump administration had complied with the judge's written order subsequent to the verbal instructions. He insisted the oral directive did not hold force until it was documented later on Saturday evening.
"When you knew we were having this hearing, any plane launched right at or around 5 p.m. was still subject to my order," Judge Boasberg countered, indicating his frustrations with the DOJ's interpretation.
The DOJ's position has drawn skepticism from the judge, who reminded Kambli of his judicial authority. Boasberg has noted during earlier sessions the importance of adhering to court orders, emphasizing the potential for significant legal ramifications.
"Every non-citizen subject to the AEA proclamation is being processed without the procedural safeguards expected under the law," he pointed out, referencing the disregard for established legal protocols in the deportations.
Adding to the turmoil, the DOJ officials reiterated their objection to the court's authority, claiming they need not disclose operational details citing national security concerns. Kambli refrained from providing clarity about the flights, generating increased frustration from Boasberg, who retorted, "I review classified material regularly, just to be clear, and you're not indicating any basis for denying the court its information." The judge's instructions led to reminders about his authority to oversee such matters.
Boasberg ordered the DOJ to present by noon on Tuesday, March 18, sworn declarations detailing the flights. This includes clarifying if individuals on subsequent flights were removed solely under the Alien Enemies Act after his previous orders were implemented.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration's assertions of noncompliance continued, depicting verbal orders as unenforceable. The courtroom nuances inspired legal experts to weigh in on the growing tensions, characterizing it as reflective of larger struggles between branches of government.
"Such actions could signal irreparable harm to the integrity of judicial authority intersecting with executive decisions," observed Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck.
The contentious hearing followed the administration's attempts to vacate the session and request another judge preside over the case entirely. They argued Boasberg’s oversight exemplified misconduct and suggested he endangered national security through his inquiries.
Declaring his intentions to remain focused on the facts at hand, Judge Boasberg moved forward, probing for clarity on previous deportation flights. Notably, before the Monday hearing began, Trump’s border czar Tom Homan displayed overt defiance during interviews, insisting the administration would continue its deportation initiatives regardless of judicial scrutiny.
"We’re not stopping,” Homan asserted on "Fox News," reinforcing the administration's confrontational stance toward federal judicial orders.
The situation had escalated sharply, pertaining to the administration’s deployment of the Alien Enemies Act—a extreme measure not utilized since World War II. The belt of legality surrounding deportations enforces higher scrutiny now than before, particularly when involving potential violations of due process.
The backgrounds of deportees center largely on President Trump’s pronouncements of conducting strict immigration enforcement, even as elements like transparency come heavily under scrutiny.
Emerging from the hearing, several attorneys and experts on civil liberties condemned the administration's posture. "The refusal to comply with articulated judicial mandates undermines the checks and balances fundamental to our democratic frameworks," said Lee Gelernt, ACLU's lead counsel on the case. Gelernt's remarks echoed sentiments of eroding foundational values.
Looking forward, more hearings are set for March 21. During these, Boasberg aims for comprehensive details on whom the Trump administration has deported and the broader ramifications of these actions on vulnerable populations subjected to rapid removals without due process.
While the government contemplates appealing proceedings, Boasberg’s role has prompted discussions about judicial independence and the limitations of executive power as administration officials prepare for occurring court battles.
At the center of this spectacle is the sobering question: how far can confrontations between government authorities escalate before yielding detrimental impacts on constitutional protections for non-citizens? Such complexity underlines why judicial inquiries continue to evoke intense disputes and assessments of balance within the branches of government.
