-->
The Trump administration has entered a high-stakes clash with the federal judiciary over its controversial deportation policy targeting alleged gang members.
The program, which involves deporting undocumented migrants, many from Venezuela and El Salvador to a high-security prison in El Salvador, has triggered legal resistance from federal judges concerned about constitutional violations.
On Wednesday, Judge James Boasberg threatened to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt after they failed to comply with his order to return a group of Venezuelan migrants to the US.
The migrants, allegedly linked to the criminal gang Tren de Aragua, were en route to El Salvador on a government-chartered plane.
Boasberg said the administration showed ‘probable cause’ for contempt by not halting the deportation and denying the migrants the chance to challenge their removal in US courts.
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders,” he warned, criticizing the administration’s refusal to release information, citing national security concerns.
Second Judge Moves Toward Contempt In Separate Deportation Case
A day earlier, Judge Paula Xinis rebuked the Justice Department for ignoring her order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant mistakenly deported despite court protection.
She ordered federal officials to provide regular updates and set depositions with Garcia’s legal team.
Growing frustrated with the lack of compliance, Xinis stated, “There will be no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding.”
She also signaled that contempt proceedings could follow if the administration continued to withhold information or delay action.
Administration Defends Actions; Cites National Security
The Trump administration has defended its deportation policy by invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 1798 law that allows the government to act against nationals of enemy countries during times of conflict.
Officials claimed that 238 Venezuelan migrants belonged to Tren de Aragua, which the administration recently designated a foreign terrorist organization.
While the Justice Department argued that aircraft carrying the migrants were outside US jurisdiction once airborne, Boasberg maintained that the administration must allow due process for those facing removal.
Also Read: California Sues Trump Administration Over Tariffs; Cites Economic Harm
The conflict has already reached the Supreme Court. In a related matter, the Court struck down Boasberg’s attempt to halt deportations but upheld the right of migrants to challenge their removal.
In Garcia’s case, the Court ruled narrowly, requiring the US government only to ‘facilitate’ his return, not to physically bring him back, contrary to Xinis’s original directive.
El Salvador Refuses To Release Garcia
The issue grew more complicated when El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele told President Trump during a White House meeting that his government would not release Garcia from the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a maximum-security prison for gang leaders.
US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the administration would not pursue further action, declaring, “He’s not coming back. End of story.”
Bondi emphasized that the US would provide transportation only if El Salvador agreed to release Garcia voluntarily.
Although the Justice Department acknowledged Garcia’s deportation was a mistake, it claimed he was affiliated with MS-13, a transnational gang with deep roots in El Salvador.
Judge Xinis has ordered four federal officials to testify under oath next week, as her courtroom inches closer to full contempt proceedings.
Meanwhile, Judge Boasberg suggested he would appoint an independent prosecutor if the Justice Department refused to bring contempt charges.
Legal analysts believe the Supreme Court may once again intervene to determine whether the executive branch overstepped its constitutional limits.
Political Fallout Grows
President Trump escalated the feud by calling Boasberg a ‘radical left lunatic’.
In response, a group of Republican lawmakers introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to impeach the judge, a move that could further strain relations between the executive and judicial branches.
Ultimately, this legal battle may mark a defining moment in the separation of powers under the US Constitution.
If contempt proceedings move forward, the courts could confront the White House head-on over its refusal to follow judicial orders, an outcome that legal scholars say could reshape the boundaries of executive authority in immigration policy.
To read more such news, download Bharat Express news apps
