In an exploding deportation court battle involving an activist judge, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for continuing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act against court orders.
See the tweet below!
This decision has ignited a storm of tension between the branches of government, questioning the very fabric of constitutional adherence.
The controversy began when President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used law, to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan prison gang, Tren de Aragua.
This move was met with a temporary restraining order, yet 137 people were still deported to El Salvador.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward promptly sued, asserting deportations without due process.
A federal court had issued an order to halt such deportations on March 15, which Boasberg noted the administration willfully disregarded.
While the Supreme Court lifted his March 15 ruling, Boasberg emphasized that the administration’s failure to comply during its enforcement period displayed a “willful disregard” for the order, strong enough to warrant criminal contempt.
The Trump administration’s defense argued against Boasberg’s authority, claiming the deportations were lawful, and maintained those actions were necessary to deter criminals entering the U.S.
A statement by White House Communications Director Steven Cheung clarified, “We plan to seek immediate appellate relief.”
“The administration’s ‘willful disobedience of judicial orders’ without consequences would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the Constitution itself,'” wrote U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
The Justice Department’s arguments that Boasberg’s orders lacked necessary explanations have also been a factor.
Yet, with over 200 Venezuelans deported under negotiations with El Salvador for $6 million, questions linger about judicial reliance and constitutional boundaries when resisting criminal threats.
The federal government has until April 23 to respond or identify the individuals responsible for the deportations.
Failure to do so could lead to serious legal consequences for those who ignored the court order.
Boasberg remains firm that judicial authority must be respected, stating, “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.”
Amidst this legal debacle, Trump has criticized Judge Boasberg on TruthSocial, calling for his impeachment and reinforcing his administration’s justification for its actions.
MAJOR BREAKING: Judge Boasberg has determined the Trump Administration’s willfull disregard of their lawful court Order is sufficient grounds for criminal contempt. pic.twitter.com/y1tyYVge4I
— CALL TO ACTIVISM (@CalltoActivism) April 16, 2025
Whether this conflict will influence future policies and judicial rulings remains to be seen, but it raises a pivotal query about which power takes precedence in securing the nation.
“We plan to seek immediate appellate relief. The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country,” White House spokesperson Steven Cheung wrote on the social platform X.
The White House’s upcoming appeal will further challenge the balance between judicial authority and executive decisions on national security and the ability to protect American communities against criminals.
