A federal judge has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court for violating an order related to deportation flights of Venezuelan gang members. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued this ruling on April 16, 2025, after the administration failed to comply with his directive to turn around planes carrying alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador.
In a detailed 48-page opinion, Judge Boasberg emphasized that the administration's actions demonstrated a "willful disregard" for the court's orders. This ruling marks a significant escalation in the ongoing tensions between the judicial and executive branches of the U.S. government, particularly concerning the use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law invoked by President Trump.
On March 15 and 16, 2025, the Trump administration conducted a hurried removal operation, sending over 200 alleged gang members to El Salvador shortly after Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting these deportations. Despite the judge's order, the flights proceeded, leading to Boasberg's assertion that the government acted in contempt of court.
Judge Boasberg pointed out that the Constitution does not tolerate such disobedience, especially from officials who have sworn an oath to uphold it. He stated, "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it." He further noted that allowing officials to disregard court orders would undermine the integrity of the judicial system.
In his ruling, Boasberg provided the Trump administration a one-week deadline to file a declaration explaining the steps they have taken to comply with his initial order. He made it clear that the most straightforward way to rectify the contempt finding would be to assert custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the court's TRO, allowing them the opportunity to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.
Boasberg's ruling follows a series of legal battles surrounding the deportation of Venezuelan nationals under the Alien Enemies Act, a law that has been used sparingly throughout U.S. history. The act was invoked by Trump in response to what he described as an invasion by the Tren de Aragua gang, which has been linked to criminal activities both in Venezuela and the United States.
The administration has argued that it did not violate any orders, claiming that the judge's directive was not included in his written order and that the flights had already departed by the time the order was issued. However, Boasberg rejected this defense, emphasizing that the government's actions showed a desire to circumvent judicial oversight.
In light of the Supreme Court's recent ruling, which vacated Boasberg's temporary order due to a legal defect, the judge maintained that this does not excuse the government's violation. He stated, "The fact that the Supreme Court determined that this Court’s TROs suffered from a venue defect does not affect — let alone moot — the compliance inquiry presently teed up here."
Boasberg's decision to potentially hold the administration in contempt is not only about the specific deportations but also reflects broader concerns about the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches. The ruling comes amid a backdrop of increasing scrutiny on the Trump administration's immigration policies, particularly regarding the treatment of migrants and the due process rights afforded to them.
As part of the contempt proceedings, Boasberg indicated he would require the government to submit declarations regarding the actions taken by officials responsible for the deportations. If the responses are deemed unsatisfactory, he may proceed to hold hearings with live witness testimony or depositions conducted by plaintiffs.
Moreover, Boasberg hinted at the possibility of appointing an independent attorney to prosecute the contempt if the Justice Department declines to do so. This unique power allows judges to ensure that contempt is addressed, particularly in cases where executive actions appear to flout judicial authority.
In a related case, Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland has also initiated inquiries into the administration's compliance with a separate Supreme Court ruling regarding the release of a deported Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, to the same Salvadoran prison where the Venezuelan migrants were sent. This suggests a growing judicial effort to hold the administration accountable for its immigration practices.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the implications of Judge Boasberg's ruling could resonate beyond this specific case, potentially influencing future immigration policy and the relationship between the branches of government. The administration's next steps will be closely watched as they navigate the legal ramifications of this contempt ruling.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other advocacy groups have expressed strong support for the judge's ruling, asserting that it underscores the importance of due process and the rule of law in immigration enforcement. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, stated, "Today's decision affirms what we have long known: the government's conduct in this case is unlawful and a threat to people and our constitution."
As the deadline for the Trump administration approaches, the outcome of this legal battle could set significant precedents regarding the enforcement of judicial orders and the treatment of immigrants under U.S. law.
