Trump Admin in Hot Seat: Boasberg Signals Contempt for El Salvador Flights

On April 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg intensified a legal showdown with the Trump administration, issuing a memorandum that found “probable cause” to hold the administration in contempt of court. The controversy centers on the administration’s deportation of nearly 300 alleged gang members to El Salvador, which Boasberg claims violated his temporary restraining order (TRO). The judge accused Trump officials of “willful disregard” for judicial authority, setting the stage for a potential referral for criminal prosecution if the administration fails to rectify its actions. This clash, rooted in the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13 gangs, underscores deep tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch over immigration enforcement.

The saga began when President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime statute, to designate Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as terrorist organizations and initiate mass deportations of their members. The administration’s move was part of a broader crackdown on illegal immigration, targeting individuals it accused of violent criminal activity. Two deportation flights, carrying nearly 300 alleged gang members, departed for El Salvador before Boasberg issued a TRO at the urging of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Soros-linked Democracy Forward. The groups sued on behalf of five illegal aliens, arguing that the deportations violated due process.

Boasberg’s TRO explicitly barred the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport gang members without providing them an opportunity to defend themselves. However, Trump officials claimed they received the judge’s order only after the planes had already landed in El Salvador. This timing dispute lies at the heart of Boasberg’s contempt finding. In his memorandum, the judge wrote, “The Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.” He emphasized that judicial orders must be obeyed, regardless of their legal merits, until reversed through proper channels.

The Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s TRO, affirming Trump’s authority to use the Alien Enemies Act for deportations, provided deportees receive due process. However, Boasberg argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling did not excuse the administration’s initial defiance. “It is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order ‘must be obeyed’—no matter how ‘erroneous’ it ‘may be’—until a court reverses it,” he wrote. He warned that allowing officials to “freely annul the judgments of the courts” would undermine the rule of law and make a “solemn mockery” of the Constitution. Boasberg’s memorandum offered the administration a chance to “purge” the contempt by complying with his order, but he signaled readiness to identify specific officials for prosecution if they refuse.

The administration’s response has been defiant. Attorney General Pam Bondi invoked the state secrets privilege to block Boasberg’s access to information about the deportation flights and the individuals involved. In a filing, Bondi stated, “The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided in response to the Court’s March 18, 2025 Minute Order based on the state secrets privilege and the concurrently filed declarations of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security.” This move has further inflamed tensions, with Boasberg accusing the administration of stonewalling and failing to provide satisfactory explanations for its actions.

The case has sparked intense debate over the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, as well as the broader implications for immigration policy. Supporters of the Trump administration argue that the deportations were a necessary response to the growing threat of gangs like Tren de Aragua and MS-13, which have been linked to violent crimes across the U.S. They view Boasberg’s TRO as an overreach by a left-leaning judge intent on obstructing Trump’s agenda. Social media posts from White House accounts have amplified this narrative, with one stating, “President Trump is protecting Americans by removing dangerous gang members, despite activist judges trying to stop him.” The posts, widely shared, reflect strong public support among Trump’s base.

Critics, however, see the administration’s actions as a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. The ACLU and Democracy Forward argue that the deportations violated due process and that the administration’s refusal to comply with Boasberg’s order undermines judicial authority. They point to the Supreme Court’s ruling, which emphasized the need for deportees to have a chance to defend themselves, as evidence that the administration acted prematurely. “The rule of law applies to everyone, including the president,” an ACLU spokesperson said in a statement. “Ignoring a court order to deport hundreds of people without due process is not just reckless—it’s unconstitutional.”

The controversy also raises questions about the individuals deported. While the administration claims the flights carried confirmed gang members, the ACLU and Democracy Forward argue that some deportees may have been misidentified or lacked proper legal recourse. A recent 60 Minutes report noted that 75% of deportees to El Salvador in similar operations had no criminal records, fueling concerns about the accuracy of the administration’s targeting. The invocation of the state secrets privilege has made it difficult to verify the identities or backgrounds of those deported, leaving Boasberg and the public with limited information.

For Boasberg, the issue is not just about immigration but about the integrity of the judicial system. A veteran judge appointed by President Barack Obama, Boasberg has a reputation for measured rulings but has taken a firm stance in this case. His memorandum reflects a deep concern about the precedent set by the administration’s actions. “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. His decision to pursue contempt proceedings, a rare and serious step, underscores the gravity of the situation.

As the legal battle unfolds, the Trump administration faces mounting pressure. If Boasberg moves forward with contempt proceedings, individual officials—potentially including high-ranking figures like Bondi or Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem—could face personal legal consequences. The administration’s refusal to provide information, citing national security, may complicate its defense but aligns with Trump’s broader strategy of challenging institutional constraints.

Public reaction has been polarized. Pro-Trump commentators have accused Boasberg of judicial activism, with some calling for his impeachment. Meanwhile, legal scholars and civil rights groups have praised the judge for upholding the rule of law. The case has also drawn international attention, with El Salvador’s government expressing concern about the return of alleged gang members to its territory.

For now, the Trump administration has an opportunity to avoid contempt by complying with Boasberg’s demands, though its invocation of state secrets suggests it may continue to resist. The outcome of this standoff will have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement, judicial authority, and the limits of executive power. As Boasberg put it, the case is about more than a single court order—it’s about ensuring that “no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how powerful.