DOJ Seeks to Block Judge’s Deportation Contempt Case/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to halt a contempt inquiry into the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan migrants, accusing a federal judge of bias and unconstitutional overreach. The clash stems from alleged defiance of a court order to stop deportations to El Salvador. The appeals court temporarily paused the inquiry, pending further review.
Trump-Era Deportation Dispute Quick Looks
- DOJ wants Judge Boasberg removed from deportation case.
- DOJ accuses him of unconstitutional retaliation against Trump officials.
- Case concerns deportation of 137 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
- Court order allegedly blocked deportations, which still occurred.
- DOJ claims judge’s verbal order wasn’t in writing.
- Appeals court temporarily paused contempt hearing scheduled for Monday.
- Former DOJ attorney and whistleblower to testify in the hearings.
- Homeland Security Secretary says she acted on DOJ legal advice.
- Trump and allies accuse Boasberg of political bias.
- Judge says migrants suffered abuse after being deported unlawfully.
Deep Look: DOJ Battles Contempt Inquiry Over Trump Deportations
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a sharp escalation of tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration, the Department of Justice is asking a federal appeals court to halt a contempt investigation against it and remove a district court judge from the case over alleged defiance of a deportation order.
The dispute centers on the deportation of 137 Venezuelan migrants who were flown to El Salvador in March, allegedly in direct violation of an order issued by U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg. Now, with the judge pushing forward on potential contempt proceedings, DOJ officials are accusing him of launching a “radical, retaliatory, unconstitutional campaign” against the Trump administration.
On Friday, the department petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to intervene. The court agreed to temporarily stay Boasberg’s contempt-related order, halting proceedings for now while it considers the DOJ’s arguments. A three-judge panel issued the administrative stay but clarified it does not reflect a decision on the case’s merits.
Judge Boasberg had scheduled a hearing for Monday, where former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni—a whistleblower—was set to testify about alleged internal discussions on ignoring court orders. Another hearing was slated for Tuesday, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign scheduled to testify about the communication of Boasberg’s March 15 order to the Department of Homeland Security.
In a strongly worded court filing, the DOJ described Boasberg’s upcoming hearings as “a circus” and “an endless fishing expedition” that threatens both the separation of powers and attorney-client privilege. The department insists that its actions did not violate any written court order and notes that Boasberg’s March directive was made verbally and never included in his formal, written ruling.
Boasberg has maintained that the administration had ample opportunity to clarify or correct its actions but failed to provide satisfactory explanations. In an April 16 court order, he stated the government may have acted in “bad faith” and emphasized that “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch.”
The judge is considering whether to refer the matter for criminal contempt prosecution.
Trump and Allies Push Back
President Donald Trump responded by calling for Boasberg’s impeachment in March, and the Justice Department followed up in July with a misconduct complaint against the judge. They accuse him of making inappropriate public comments critical of Trump and his administration.
Attorney General Pam Bondi weighed in again on Friday via social media, calling Boasberg’s actions “lawless judicial activism” and warning that his conduct “will not stand.”
The dispute highlights the continuing power struggles between the judiciary and the Trump administration during the president’s second term, especially as the administration has pushed aggressive immigration enforcement policies despite legal constraints.
Whistleblower Allegations and Legal Dispute
The contempt hearings were triggered by a whistleblower complaint from Reuveni, who claims senior DOJ officials discussed potentially ignoring court directives while carrying out deportations. The migrants, reportedly placed in a high-security facility in El Salvador, allegedly faced abuse and possibly torture upon arrival.
Boasberg expressed concern about the consequences, writing, “Approximately 137 men were spirited out of this country without a hearing and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many suffered abuse and possible torture, despite this Court’s order that they should not be disembarked.”
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem defended the administration’s actions in a declaration to the court, saying she made the decision not to return the planes based on “privileged legal advice” provided by the department’s acting general counsel, with input from senior DOJ leadership.
Boasberg rejected Noem’s defense as insufficient, labeling her statement “cursory” and lacking the necessary detail to determine if she knowingly violated the court’s order.
What Happens Next?
Although Boasberg refused to cancel next week’s hearings, the appellate court’s temporary stay means the Monday and Tuesday sessions may not proceed unless the stay is lifted or expires.
The Justice Department maintains that Boasberg is overstepping his authority and turning a procedural dispute into a political confrontation.
“This long-running saga never should have begun,” DOJ attorneys wrote, warning of “an unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict.”
The case underscores a growing legal and constitutional debate over the extent to which federal courts can enforce their rulings against a presidential administration that views certain judicial orders as overreach.
Whether the appeals court allows the contempt proceedings to move forward could set a precedent on judicial enforcement powers, executive branch accountability, and the limits of legal interpretation during politically charged deportation actions.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.