A federal judge has found probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt after they deported Venezuelan gang members despite a court order forbidding such actions.
At a Glance
- U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found the Trump administration showed “willful disregard” for his temporary restraining order on deportations
- Despite the court order, the administration sent two planeloads of illegal aliens to El Salvador
- The White House defended its actions, citing national security concerns and its designation of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization
- The Supreme Court previously ruled 5-4 that the administration could use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, but did not address constitutional questions
- The administration now faces a deadline to comply or identify officials responsible for violating the order
Judge Finds “Willful Disregard” for Court Order
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has determined there is “probable cause” to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for continuing deportation flights despite his temporary restraining order. On March 15, Judge Boasberg explicitly barred the use of the Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations of Venezuelan nationals. Hours after the court issued this restraining order, however, the administration proceeded with deportation flights, sending two planeloads of illegal aliens to El Salvador.
“Rather than comply with the court’s order, the government continued the hurried removal operation,” Boasberg wrote in an order Wednesday, adding that only hours after the court issued the restraining order, the Trump administration sent two planeloads full of illegal aliens to El Salvador.”
Judge Boasberg’s ruling gives the administration one week to submit a plan to “purge” the contempt finding. This plan must include provisions allowing the deported individuals to legally challenge their removal. If the government fails to comply, it must identify who made the decision to continue deportations despite the court order, potentially leading to sworn witness testimony, depositions, and prosecution for contempt.
White House Defends National Security Actions
The Trump administration has strongly defended its deportation actions, emphasizing national security concerns. The White House designated the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a Foreign Terrorist Organization and used the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of its members. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung indicated the administration plans to contest the ruling and seek “immediate appellate relief.”
“The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country,” Cheung added.
The case specifically involves the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious El Salvador prison. The administration’s mass deportation efforts have relied on invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798. Critics argue the administration failed to provide due process by not allowing individuals to contest their deportations, while supporters maintain the executive branch has necessary authority to protect national security.
— The American Conservative (@amconmag) April 1, 2025
Supreme Court Ruling and Legal Context
The ongoing legal battle follows a recent Supreme Court decision that allowed the Trump administration to resume deportations of Venezuelan criminal illegal aliens under the Alien Enemies Act. In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court permitted the use of the Act but did not address the broader constitutional questions regarding its application for deportations. Instead, the ruling noted that the lawsuit challenging the deportations had been filed in the wrong court.
“The court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its order,” Boasberg wrote.
The ACLU and Democracy Forward sued the administration, claiming the deportations occurred without constitutionally required due process. Judge Boasberg agreed with this assessment, emphasizing that individuals had no meaningful opportunity to contest their removability. The Justice Department argued Boasberg had overstepped his authority, but the judge rejected this argument, stressing the importance of adhering to judicial orders and constitutional principles. The administration now faces an April 23 deadline to respond to the contempt finding.
