A federal judge has found a probable cause that the Trump administration acted in contempt of the court when last month’s officials challenged their order to deliver two planes that carry alleged members of Venezuelan gangs to El Salvador.
The “intentional disobedience of the judicial orders of the administration” without consequences would make “a solemn mockery” of “the Constitution itself” on Wednesday the United States district judge, James Boasberg.
Last month, Boasberg ordered the government to deliver about two flights with more than 200 alleged members of Aragua’s train to El Salvador after the Trump administration invoked the Alien enemies law, a war authority used to deport non -citizens with a process due to due process, arguing that the gang is a “hybrid hybrid state” that is invading the United States.
The authorities could not change the flights, but they have insisted that “they complied with the law” while questioning the legitimacy of the Boasberg order. According to the Department of Justice, the oral instructions of Boasberg that directed the flight that would be returned were defective, and their subsequent written order lacked the necessary explanation that will be applied.
Boasberg criticized the Trump administration for carrying out a “hurried removal operation” on March 15 and 16 in the hours after the issuance of an order that blocked deportations and ordering men who returned to the United States.
“As this opinion will detail, the court finally determines that government actions on that day demonstrate intentional contempt for their order,” he wrote.
Boasberg said he gave the Trump administration “a wide opportunity to rectify or explain his actions” but “none of his answers has been satisfactory.”
President Donald Trump in Washington, on April 14, 2025 and James Boasberg, main judge of the United States District Court for the Columbia district.
AFP through Getty Images/Reuters
While the Supreme Court finally annulled its court order, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration still challenges the order during the three weeks in which it was in force, even if the order suffered a “legal defect.”
“The Constitution does not tolerate the deliberate disobedience of judicial orders, especially by the officials of a coordinated branch that has sworn an oath to defend it. To allow these officials to freely annul the sentences of the courts of the courts of the United States”, not only would destroy the rights of those trials “; he would write” a single measure “of the Constitution of the Constitution.”
Boasberg gave the Trump administration a period of one week to present “a statement that explains the steps they have taken and will take it.”
The way of “purging” the possible finding of contempt, said Boasberg, would be to obey his initial order.
“The most obvious way for the defendants to do it here is to affirm the custody of the people who were eliminated in violation of the court of the court so that they can take advantage of their right to challenge their elimination through a habit procedure,” Boasberg wrote, referring to the Order of Temporary Restriction it issued.
The US military personnel escort an alleged member of the Venezuelan gang of Aragua and the MS-13 gang that was deported by the United States government to be imprisoned in the CECOT prison, at the El Salvador International Airport in San Luis Talpa, El Salvador on April 12, 2025.
Secom/via Reuters
“According to the terms of the tro, the government would not need to free any of those people, nor would it have to transport them back to the homeland. The court will also give the accused the opportunity to propose other methods to comply with, which the court will evaluate.”
If the Trump administration does not want to purge the discovery of Boasberg’s contempt, the judge said that “it will proceed to identify the individual (s) responsible for contumaz behavior by determining who” specific act or omission “caused breach.”
Boasberg said he will begin by requiring government statements, and if they are unsatisfactory, “he will proceed to hearings with testimony of witnesses live under oath or depositions made by the plaintiffs.”
As a final potential step, Boasberg raised the possibility that he could appoint an independent lawyer to process the government for his contempt.
“The next step would be for the Court, in accordance with the federal rules of criminal proceedings, to request that the contempt be processed by a lawyer for the government,” Boasberg wrote.
If the government “decreases” or “the interest of justice requires”, the court “will appoint another lawyer to process contempt,” he wrote.
