U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
El Salvador Presidency Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
El Salvador Presidency Handout/Anadolu via Getty Images
Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia determined on Wednesday that there is “probable cause” to suggest the Trump administration could be held in criminal contempt of court for breaching his order last month that mandated an immediate halt to deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
On March 15, President Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act aiming at members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang that Trump claims is infiltrating the United States.
The administration dispatched multiple flights filled with alleged gang members to El Salvador shortly after invoking the act, including 137 individuals under the statute, as confirmed by the White House at the time.
The chartered flights occurred just after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward lodged lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding its use of the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that the government expelled individuals without due process.
Boasberg placed a temporary restraining order prohibiting deportations that evening — yet the flights continued to arrive in El Salvador. The Justice Department contended that Boasberg overstepped by intervening in matters related to foreign policy.
However, Boasberg was not persuaded.
He remarked that although he had issued the order temporarily halting the flights, “those individuals were on planes being flown overseas, having been spirited out of the United States by the Government before they could vindicate their due-process rights by contesting their removability in a federal court, as the law requires.”
“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day represent a deliberate disregard for its Order, justifying the conclusion that probable cause exists to hold the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg stated on Wednesday. “The Court does not arrive at such a conclusion lightly; it has provided the Defendants ample opportunities to rectify or clarify their actions. No satisfactory responses have been received.”
The White House announced immediate plans to appeal.
Government faces April 23 deadline
Boasberg instructed the federal government to respond by April 23 to attempt to “purge their contempt” and demonstrate compliance with his temporary restraining order.
Alternatively, the government must disclose the identities of those responsible for not stopping Alien Enemies Act deportations outside the U.S. despite his order — a violation Boasberg indicated would be referred for prosecution.
A finding of criminal contempt is treated as a criminal offense, potentially resulting in fines or imprisonment.
“We intend to seek immediate appellate relief,” White House communications director Steven Cheung declared on X. “The President is fully committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants do not pose threats to Americans and their communities nationwide.”
The Supreme Court weighed in on the matter last week, stating that the ACLU and Democracy Forward should have pursued their lawsuits in a different court and under alternative statutes. However, it did not address the underlying question of the constitutionality of Trump’s application of the Alien Enemies Act, instead affirming that any alleged gang members deported under this act are entitled to notification of deportation and the chance to contest it.
“The Court’s later conclusion that the TRO [temporary restraining order] contained legal flaws, nevertheless, does not absolve the Government from its violations,” Boasberg commented on the Supreme Court’s evaluation of his temporary restraining order. “If a party decides to defy the order — rather than awaiting its reversal through legal channels — such defiance is punishable as contempt, regardless of any subsequently revealed flaws in the order.”
“The Constitution does not permit willful noncompliance with judicial orders — particularly by officials of a co-equal branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” he further noted.
Democracy Forward, one of the organizations filing the lawsuit against the order, stated it would continue to advocate for its clients’ rights and pursue their due process.
“Today’s ruling confirms what we have long believed: the government’s actions in this matter are unlawful and pose a threat to individuals and our constitutional rights,” remarked Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, in a statement.
