What Will Happen If Trump Officials Are Found in Contempt?

A federal judge in the U.S. has issued a one-week ultimatum to President Donald Trump’s officials to comply with a court order, or they risk being held in contempt of court, which could lead to a significant confrontation between two branches of government.

Judge James Boasberg indicated that the “most straightforward way” for officials to avert contempt was to “assert custody” over over 200 individuals who were deported to El Salvador last month, contrary to his initial directive.

However, the Trump administration has shown reluctance to comply, dismissing Wednesday’s request and indicating plans to appeal.

The White House refutes allegations of wrongdoing and has characterized the group as “terrorists and criminal illegal migrants” who pose a threat to American society.

Experts suggest that a conflict between the judicial and executive branches appears imminent. What potential outcomes lie ahead if the government does not meet Judge Boasberg’s deadline of April 23?

To determine who among Trump’s officials might face contempt of court charges, it is crucial to establish who is responsible for failing to comply, an expert has informed the BBC.

Currently, it is unclear which specific actions led the officials to contravene Judge Boasberg’s initial order against deporting individuals to El Salvador, as noted by Robert Tsai, a constitutional law professor at Boston University.

Lawyers would typically employ a discovery process to ascertain responsibility, involving the request of documents and questioning relevant government officials under oath.

“You aim to clearly identify who is essentially stating, ‘We’re proceeding with deportations, regardless of the judge’s directives,'” stated Prof Tsai.

Government attorneys contended that the deportation flights were already underway by the time Judge Boasberg’s formal order was issued, and that his subsequent verbal command for the planes to return occurred when the flights were already out of U.S. airspace.

Should Judge Boasberg perceive that government lawyers are not cooperating, he has the authority to impose fines on both the lawyers and other officials until compliance is achieved, Prof Tsai explained. Such sanctions would remain in place until the government adheres to the judge’s orders.

This entire process falls under the jurisdiction of civil contempt.

There is also a potential scenario in which Trump administration officials might be accused of criminal contempt, an offense that could lead to imprisonment.

“This is considered extremely serious and is generally seen as a last resort,” noted Prof Tsai.

In cases of criminal contempt, the customary procedure would involve a referral for prosecution by the Justice Department, overseen by Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Furthermore, Judge Boasberg possesses the authority to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue criminal contempt charges, bypassing Bondi, a known ally of Trump who was appointed by the president himself.

“Given this administration’s tendencies, it is plausible that the Justice Department might refuse to pursue prosecution,” stated George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin to the BBC.

Even if the Justice Department decides to proceed, Trump retains the ability to grant pardons for criminal offenses. However, he does not possess the power to issue pardons for civil liabilities (civil contempt).

Judge James E. Boasberg’s ruling on Wednesday indicated the government displayed a “willful disregard” for his orders by dispatching flights carrying alleged criminals to El Salvador after he had prohibited the use of wartime powers for such deportations.

The 1798 Alien Enemies Act granted the Trump administration authority to expedite the deportation of individuals labeled as gang members without substantiating the claims.

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court later validating the Trump administration’s use of this wartime law, Judge Boasberg emphasized on Wednesday that this does not absolve the government of violating his earlier directive.

To avert contempt proceedings, the judge offered the administration two alternatives: to “purge” its contempt or to rectify its non-compliance.

He stated that the “most straightforward way” for the administration to comply would be to “assert custody” over the hundreds deported to El Salvador’s overcrowded prison, allowing them to “challenge their removability.”

Judge Boasberg clarified that the government would not be required to release any of those deported—many of whom lack prior convictions—nor to arrange for their return to the U.S.

He also mentioned that the administration could “propose alternative methods of achieving compliance.”

This high-stakes confrontation between a federal judge and the Trump administration occurs under a president with the expressed aim of implementing the “largest deportation program” in U.S. history.

If any officials are found to be in contempt, it is improbable that the president himself would face criminal charges, even with potential involvement, due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity from the previous year, according to Prof Tsai.

“The presidential immunity ruling is likely to protect him from any form of criminal prosecution,” Prof Tsai explained.

“Such orders are essentially policy decisions; they might be unlawful or unconstitutional, but they’re executed within the scope of his inherent powers,” he added.