UJ
—
Judge James Boasberg, who ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration demonstrated a “willful disregard” for his order that halted deportation flights due to legality disputes, is the first judge to determine that “probable cause exists” to hold administration officials in criminal contempt.
However, the legal battle regarding whether federal officials defied Boasberg’s orders is unfolding within a broader context of administration contempt and resistance towards judges who have limited President Donald Trump’s agenda, a sentiment driven from the top by Trump himself.
Officials in the Trump administration have launched personal critiques against Boasberg and other judges both online and in appearances. Attorneys for the government have claimed ignorance when confronted with fundamental inquiries regarding ongoing legal disputes. In response to rulings that halt Trump’s policies, the administration has shown a notable disdain for judicial authority in the guidance provided to its agencies regarding compliance with the judges’ directives.
“It’s astonishing in its boldness and lack of respect,” remarked retired Judge John Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee who served on a federal court in Pennsylvania. “It’s unlike anything I’ve observed from the Justice Department and, frankly, from any lawyers practicing in federal court.”
The administration’s nonchalant attitude has been evident in the case regarding the wrongful deportation of a migrant from Maryland to a high-security prison in El Salvador. This matter escalated after the Supreme Court upheld a district judge’s order requiring the Trump administration to “facilitate” the migrant’s return to the U.S.
During a hearing on Tuesday presided over by US District Judge Paula Xinis, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign attempted to challenge her interpretation of the Supreme Court’s instructions, suggesting that the administration would appeal any broad definition of the term “facilitate,” which the Supreme Court emphasized in its recent ruling.
“The Supreme Court has made its decision. I am adhering as closely as possible to the Supreme Court’s ruling. My order is explicit. There is, in my view, nothing to appeal,” Xinis asserted. Subsequently, the department filed an appeal against her April 11 ruling, which directed the administration to take actions to facilitate the migrant’s return and to provide her with details about those actions.
In this case, as well as in their public communications regarding various legal conflicts, senior Trump officials have expressed the belief that, irrespective of what lower courts rule, they have the Supreme Court on their side.
For example, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller inaccurately described a Supreme Court ruling as a unanimous 9-0 decision in favor of the administration regarding whether a court could mandate the government to take actions to assist in bringing Abrego Garcia back. The actual unsigned majority opinion was more ambiguous, and three liberal justices separately indicated their agreement with the directive for the government to take steps to return migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
“The administration appears to be attempting to create a divide between the Supreme Court and the rest of the judiciary, asserting, ‘We will heed the Supreme Court, but we will not concern ourselves with the lower courts,’” Jones stated.
Throughout Trump’s first presidency, judges often found themselves subjected to his notorious social media outbursts, leading to serious concerns about their personal safety.
Top officials in his second administration frequently ridicule judges as well.
For instance, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller labeled Xinis a “Marxist” who “now believes she’s the president of El Salvador.” Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Boasberg was “attempting to shield terrorists who invaded our country from American citizens.” Trump furthered the narrative that Boasberg deserved impeachment.
This disparaging language has permeated the administration’s more official communications as well.
When the Justice Department was compelled to inform agencies that a judge had suspended a Trump executive order affecting a law firm’s interaction with the federal government, a memo authored by Bondi stated that “an unelected district court has once again encroached upon the policy-making and free speech prerogatives of the executive branch.”
Former federal judge says Trump is playing a ‘dangerous game’ with Judge Boasberg
US Citizenship and Immigration Services revised a notice on its website indicating that a Trump immigration policy had been suspended by a court in California, as noted in court filings from the policy’s challengers. The original version clearly outlined the court’s ruling and its impact on the policy. However, a few days later, the notice was rewritten to take potshots at the judge’s ruling.
“The Administration is dedicated to reinstating the rule of law regarding Temporary Protected Status (TPS),” the revised notice stated, in reference to the immigration program that Trump was barred from dissolving. “Nevertheless, on March 31, 2025, Federal Judge Edward Chen in San Francisco ordered the department to maintain TPS for Venezuelans.”
Samuel Bagenstos, who served as general counsel at two federal agencies during the Biden administration and held important positions at the Justice Department, noted that the administration’s tone was unprecedented in his “30-plus years as a lawyer.”
“We presented robust arguments to the courts we were appealing to, stating that these decisions were incorrect,” Bagenstos, who is now a law professor at the University of Michigan, said regarding his tenure in the Biden administration. “However, when instructing our clients on how to comply with court orders, we took seriously the courts’ authority to mandate us to act as they directed.”
In court proceedings, the Trump Justice Department has been dismissive about presenting judges with facts essential to understanding the conflicts at hand.
US District Judge Ellen Hollander, who is presiding over a challenge regarding access the Department of Government Efficiency has to sensitive Social Security Administration data, requested the attendance of the agency’s acting commissioner at a hearing to clarify inconsistencies in the documentation and statements provided by the government in the case. Hollander previously criticized acting commissioner Leland Dudek for misrepresenting to the media that he would have to shutter the agency due to her emergency order limiting DOGE data access, clarifying that this was a misinterpretation of her directives.
At 10 PM on Monday, the department informed her that Dudek would not participate in the proceedings, citing only the evidence previously submitted by the government and “the demands on the Acting Commissioner’s time.”
Hollander repeatedly mentioned during Tuesday’s hearing that the absence of Dudek hindered her ability to grasp critical aspects of the legal dispute.
Earlier in the matter concerning the wrongly deported migrant, a career DOJ attorney candidly admitted the difficulty he was facing in obtaining information from government officials that he knew the judge would request.
“Your Honor, I will convey to the Court that upon this case landing on my desk, the first thing I did was ask my clients that very question,” the attorney mentioned when Xinis inquired why the U.S. could not request Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. “To date, I have not received a satisfactory answer.”
This attorney has since been terminated, with Bondi asserting that he had not adequately “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.”
Ensign, a political appointee who has taken over the case, has been considerably more reserved in his non-responses to the judge. At a recent hearing, he argued while seated at the defense table instead of standing at the lectern, claiming an inability to answer even the judge’s inquiries about Abrego Garcia’s current whereabouts.
Days later, the administration has still not given direct answers to the judge’s questions regarding how it is working to bring the migrant back. Instead, at a hearing on Tuesday, Ensign attempted to reference remarks made by Trump, the Salvadoran president, and Bondi in the Oval Office.
Xinis dismissed that line of reasoning, indicating that the casual remarks made by President Nayib Bukele to a reporter would not be accepted as valid evidence in a court of law. She ordered a two-week period of “intensive” discovery, including depositions, to investigate why the administration has not acted on her order.
“By obstructing judges’ requests for information, they’re exacerbating the difficulties judges face in enforcing compliance,” Peter Keisler, a former high-ranking Justice Department official who acted as attorney general under George W. Bush, told UJ.
When demands from the right for the impeachment of Boasberg and other judges who ruled against Trump intensified, Chief Justice John Roberts made a significant statement – without naming any specific judge – asserting that the conventional appellate process, rather than impeachment, was the “appropriate response to disagreements concerning a judicial decision.”
That statement has failed to dissipate tensions. Even when ruling against the administration, the Supreme Court majority has not used those occasions to directly critique how the administration has behaved in lower courts. The Supreme Court’s majority has appeared to consciously avoid instigating further conflict, according to Bagenstos.
“If you’re in the Trump administration, you may view it as a favorable strategy to continue disrespecting these lower court judges without facing any adverse consequences for your legal position,” Bagenstos remarked.
Legal analysts suggest that the situation has been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s use of ambiguous and arguably evasive language in its brief emergency orders instructing lower courts to “clarify” their mandates for the government.
“It appears to me that tensions are escalating; the heat is rising,” Jones, the former judge, commented. Roberts and the other justices will “have to begin safeguarding the lower court judges.”
