Boasberg rules probable cause exists for holding Trump officials in criminal contempt regarding deportation flights
The judge stated that the administration had violated his directive to suspend deportations to El Salvador as stipulated by the Alien Enemies Act.
TroibNews 
A federal judge on Wednesday determined there is probable cause to hold officials from the Trump administration in criminal contempt due to what he described as a “willful disregard” for his order halting the transfer of deportees to El Salvador for imprisonment in a notorious maximum security facility.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg stated that the government rushed to fly two planes filled with hundreds of passengers to the Salvadoran prison just hours after he had prohibited such 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,” Boasberg remarked in a comprehensive 46-page decision.
The Obama appointee highlighted that rather than acknowledging “a grave mistake” and outlining steps to correct the situation, the Trump administration had stonewalled and refused to provide necessary information during hearings following his initial order. The Trump administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportations, claiming that sharing details with Boasberg would compromise state secrets.
Criminal contempt can lead to fines or imprisonment. Although Boasberg did not specify which officials he might recommend for prosecution, he indicated he would first allow the administration an opportunity to “cure” the violation — perhaps by facilitating a method for the deportees to legally challenge their detention in the El Salvador prison.
According to Boasberg, this solution would not necessarily require returning the deported individuals to the U.S. or releasing them from prison. However, if the administration fails to rectify the situation, the judge warned he might require officials to testify under oath to pinpoint those responsible for disobeying his order, ultimately leading to potential prosecutions.
Boasberg signaled his willingness to appoint an outside attorney to handle the contempt case should the Justice Department choose not to pursue it.
In response, the White House announced plans to contest Boasberg's ruling. "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," stated White House communications director Steven Cheung.
This confrontation with Boasberg occurs while the Trump administration is also involved in a separate high-stakes dispute in another deportation case. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has ordered at least four officials to provide sworn testimony regarding the administration’s inaction to comply with her order to facilitate the return of an illegally deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the United States.
Boasberg's notable conflict with administration officials began on March 15 when five Venezuelan men in immigration detention filed a lawsuit to prevent their deportations, citing fears that President Donald Trump would target them after invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a seldom-used 1798 law that allows for expedited expulsions during wartime. Trump has attempted to use this law against individuals he accuses of being associated with the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
On that day, Boasberg prohibited the deportation of the five men and convened a hearing later to consider expanding the injunction to cover all individuals facing deportation under Trump’s orders. During that hearing, at least two flights departed despite the judge's verbal command from the bench for the planes to return or to bring the deportees back.
The Trump administration contested Boasberg’s directives both inside and outside the courtroom, with Trump even calling for Boasberg's impeachment at one point.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn Boasberg’s temporary injunction against further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court rejected the Trump administration’s narrow interpretation of the deportees’ legal rights, asserting that those targeted under the Act are entitled to a “reasonable” opportunity to contest their deportation in court. However, the justices noted that litigation should be filed in the jurisdictions where the detainees are held, not consolidated in Washington, D.C.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the case did not belong before Boasberg. Nonetheless, Boasberg indicated in his Wednesday ruling that he still has the authority to hold officials in contempt for disobeying his order. He stated that litigants are obliged to adhere to orders while appeals are underway, until a higher court officially overturns those orders.
Boasberg acknowledged the Trump administration had presented “several hyper-technical legal arguments” asserting they had not violated his directive, with Justice Department lawyers contending that the planes were outside his jurisdiction upon leaving U.S. airspace, and that a judge’s oral orders lack binding authority.
“A violation of the oral command itself is grounds for contempt,” Boasberg concluded, noting that any contrary interpretation would lead to “absurd mischief.”
His determination of probable cause signifies that there exists a reasonable basis to believe that one or more individuals deliberately disregarded his orders. However, he clarified that a probable cause determination may not be legally mandated prior to initiating contempt proceedings.
Boasberg provided Trump officials one week to choose between two options: either inform him of their intention to take measures to "purge their contempt" or specify the individuals responsible for continuing the deportation flights despite his orders. He made it clear that if they do not identify names, he plans to identify those accountable and refer the case for prosecution.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg stated that the government rushed to fly two planes filled with hundreds of passengers to the Salvadoran prison just hours after he had prohibited such 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,” Boasberg remarked in a comprehensive 46-page decision.
The Obama appointee highlighted that rather than acknowledging “a grave mistake” and outlining steps to correct the situation, the Trump administration had stonewalled and refused to provide necessary information during hearings following his initial order. The Trump administration had invoked the Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportations, claiming that sharing details with Boasberg would compromise state secrets.
Criminal contempt can lead to fines or imprisonment. Although Boasberg did not specify which officials he might recommend for prosecution, he indicated he would first allow the administration an opportunity to “cure” the violation — perhaps by facilitating a method for the deportees to legally challenge their detention in the El Salvador prison.
According to Boasberg, this solution would not necessarily require returning the deported individuals to the U.S. or releasing them from prison. However, if the administration fails to rectify the situation, the judge warned he might require officials to testify under oath to pinpoint those responsible for disobeying his order, ultimately leading to potential prosecutions.
Boasberg signaled his willingness to appoint an outside attorney to handle the contempt case should the Justice Department choose not to pursue it.
In response, the White House announced plans to contest Boasberg's ruling. "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," stated White House communications director Steven Cheung.
This confrontation with Boasberg occurs while the Trump administration is also involved in a separate high-stakes dispute in another deportation case. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has ordered at least four officials to provide sworn testimony regarding the administration’s inaction to comply with her order to facilitate the return of an illegally deported man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to the United States.
Boasberg's notable conflict with administration officials began on March 15 when five Venezuelan men in immigration detention filed a lawsuit to prevent their deportations, citing fears that President Donald Trump would target them after invoking the Alien Enemies Act, a seldom-used 1798 law that allows for expedited expulsions during wartime. Trump has attempted to use this law against individuals he accuses of being associated with the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
On that day, Boasberg prohibited the deportation of the five men and convened a hearing later to consider expanding the injunction to cover all individuals facing deportation under Trump’s orders. During that hearing, at least two flights departed despite the judge's verbal command from the bench for the planes to return or to bring the deportees back.
The Trump administration contested Boasberg’s directives both inside and outside the courtroom, with Trump even calling for Boasberg's impeachment at one point.
Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to overturn Boasberg’s temporary injunction against further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. The high court rejected the Trump administration’s narrow interpretation of the deportees’ legal rights, asserting that those targeted under the Act are entitled to a “reasonable” opportunity to contest their deportation in court. However, the justices noted that litigation should be filed in the jurisdictions where the detainees are held, not consolidated in Washington, D.C.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court decided that the case did not belong before Boasberg. Nonetheless, Boasberg indicated in his Wednesday ruling that he still has the authority to hold officials in contempt for disobeying his order. He stated that litigants are obliged to adhere to orders while appeals are underway, until a higher court officially overturns those orders.
Boasberg acknowledged the Trump administration had presented “several hyper-technical legal arguments” asserting they had not violated his directive, with Justice Department lawyers contending that the planes were outside his jurisdiction upon leaving U.S. airspace, and that a judge’s oral orders lack binding authority.
“A violation of the oral command itself is grounds for contempt,” Boasberg concluded, noting that any contrary interpretation would lead to “absurd mischief.”
His determination of probable cause signifies that there exists a reasonable basis to believe that one or more individuals deliberately disregarded his orders. However, he clarified that a probable cause determination may not be legally mandated prior to initiating contempt proceedings.
Boasberg provided Trump officials one week to choose between two options: either inform him of their intention to take measures to "purge their contempt" or specify the individuals responsible for continuing the deportation flights despite his orders. He made it clear that if they do not identify names, he plans to identify those accountable and refer the case for prosecution.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
.jpg?#){kind=small}
