A federal judge has determined that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Trump administration may have acted in contempt of court by ignoring his directive to return two aircraft transporting alleged members of a Venezuelan gang to El Salvador last month. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg stated on Wednesday that the administration’s ‘deliberate disobedience of judicial orders’ without repercussions would constitute ‘a grave mockery’ of ‘the Constitution itself.’ Last month, Boasberg mandated that the government reverse two flights carrying over 200 purported members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador after the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime statute employed to deport noncitizens with minimal due process—claiming that the gang represents a ‘hybrid criminal state’ that is encroaching upon the United States. Although authorities did not comply with the flight reversal, they maintained that they ‘adhered to the law’ while disputing the validity of Boasberg’s order. The Department of Justice contended that Boasberg’s verbal instructions to return the flight were flawed, and his later written order lacked sufficient justification for enforcement. Boasberg criticized the Trump administration for executing a ‘rushed removal operation’ on March 15 and 16, shortly after he issued an order halting the deportations and mandating the return of the individuals to the United States. ‘As this Opinion will elaborate, the Court ultimately finds that the Government’s conduct on that day reflects a willful disregard for its Order,’ he stated. Boasberg emphasized that he provided the Trump administration with ‘ample opportunity to correct or clarify their actions,’ yet ‘none of their responses has been adequate.’ Although the Supreme Court eventually nullified his court order, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration still violated the order during the three weeks it was in effect, even if the order had a ‘legal defect.’The Constitution does not permit intentional defiance of judicial orders, particularly by officials from a co-equal branch who have pledged to uphold it. Allowing such officials to disregard the rulings of U.S. courts would not only undermine the rights established by those rulings but would also constitute a grave affront to the Constitution itself, as articulated by the judge. Boasberg imposed a one-week deadline on the Trump Administration to submit a declaration detailing the actions taken and planned to rectify the situation. He indicated that compliance with his initial order is the most straightforward method to eliminate the potential contempt finding. The judge noted that the Defendants could assert custody over individuals removed in violation of the Court’s classwide temporary restraining order (TRO) to enable them to challenge their removability through a habeas corpus proceeding. According to the TRO, the Government is not required to release these individuals or return them to their home country. The Court will also allow the Defendants to suggest alternative compliance methods for evaluation. Should the Trump Administration choose not to address Boasberg’s contempt finding, the judge stated he would identify those responsible for the noncompliance by examining whose specific actions or inactions led to the situation. Boasberg plans to start by requesting declarations from the government, and if these are deemed inadequate, he will move forward with hearings featuring live witness testimony under oath or depositions conducted by the Plaintiffs. As a final measure, he mentioned the possibility of appointing an independent attorney to pursue contempt charges against the government.The subsequent action would involve the Court, in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to seek prosecution of the contempt by a government attorney,” Boasberg stated. If the Government “refuses” or if “the interests of justice necessitate,” the Court will “designate an alternative attorney to pursue the contempt,” he noted.
Administration likely acted in contempt by not returning deportation flights: Judge
