Judge finds probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt
- Replies 6
A legal confrontation is quietly escalating in Washington, raising questions about how far executive authority can go during moments of national concern.
A federal judge has taken the unusual step of suggesting that a prior administration may have overstepped a court order tied to a highly sensitive immigration case.
The issue involves the use of a rarely invoked law from the 18th century—and the swift deportation of a specific group of migrants.
As the proceedings move forward, the focus is now on accountability, due process, and the boundaries of lawful government action.
US District Judge James Boasberg, in a 46-page decision, concluded there is probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court.
The allegation stems from the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador on March 15, despite an explicit order from the court barring their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798.
Boasberg emphasized that this conclusion was not reached lightly.
"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 wrote.
The controversy began when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove individuals it alleged were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
Judge Boasberg quickly blocked those removals, both in writing and in an emergency hearing, and ordered that anyone en route to El Salvador be returned to the US to assert their right to due process.
Despite the court's directives, two flights reportedly continued to El Salvador.
The court was later informed that most of the passengers had been transferred into Salvadoran custody.
Statements from officials in both countries appeared to celebrate the defiance, which Judge Boasberg described as "boasts" that suggested deliberate noncompliance.
Judge Boasberg has ordered the administration to take custody of the removed individuals so they can contest their deportation.
He also left the door open for other ways the administration might comply with his ruling.
If the Justice Department declines to prosecute the contempt charge, Boasberg stated he will appoint an independent prosecutor.
The judge has also indicated that further proceedings, possibly including sworn testimony, will be necessary to determine who in the administration authorized the flights.
Efforts by the administration to invoke the state-secrets privilege were met with skepticism by Boasberg, who said the court is only asking for logistical details, not diplomatic intelligence.
The case has also drawn attention to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has rarely been invoked in modern times.
Critics argue it is ill-suited for contemporary immigration challenges, while supporters say it offers needed flexibility during national security threats.
This case touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power, the rule of law, and how we as a country treat individuals seeking refuge.
Read more:
What do you think about the judge's ruling? How should the government balance immigration enforcement with judicial oversight? Share your views in the comments below.
A federal judge has taken the unusual step of suggesting that a prior administration may have overstepped a court order tied to a highly sensitive immigration case.
The issue involves the use of a rarely invoked law from the 18th century—and the swift deportation of a specific group of migrants.
As the proceedings move forward, the focus is now on accountability, due process, and the boundaries of lawful government action.
US District Judge James Boasberg, in a 46-page decision, concluded there is probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court.
The allegation stems from the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador on March 15, despite an explicit order from the court barring their removal under the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798.
US District Judge James Boasberg, in a 46-page decision, concluded there is probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. Image Source: Firstpost / YouTube
Boasberg emphasized that this conclusion was not reached lightly.
"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 wrote.
The controversy began when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to remove individuals it alleged were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
Judge Boasberg quickly blocked those removals, both in writing and in an emergency hearing, and ordered that anyone en route to El Salvador be returned to the US to assert their right to due process.
Despite the court's directives, two flights reportedly continued to El Salvador.
The court was later informed that most of the passengers had been transferred into Salvadoran custody.
Statements from officials in both countries appeared to celebrate the defiance, which Judge Boasberg described as "boasts" that suggested deliberate noncompliance.
Judge Boasberg has ordered the administration to take custody of the removed individuals so they can contest their deportation.
He also left the door open for other ways the administration might comply with his ruling.
If the Justice Department declines to prosecute the contempt charge, Boasberg stated he will appoint an independent prosecutor.
The judge has also indicated that further proceedings, possibly including sworn testimony, will be necessary to determine who in the administration authorized the flights.
Efforts by the administration to invoke the state-secrets privilege were met with skepticism by Boasberg, who said the court is only asking for logistical details, not diplomatic intelligence.
The case has also drawn attention to the use of the Alien Enemies Act, which has rarely been invoked in modern times.
Critics argue it is ill-suited for contemporary immigration challenges, while supporters say it offers needed flexibility during national security threats.
This case touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power, the rule of law, and how we as a country treat individuals seeking refuge.
Read more:
- Social Security flagged over 6,000 living immigrants as dead—under Trump team’s direction
- Trump’s border wall 2029: The plan to secure the US southern border
