Judge threatens criminal contempt charges against Trump officials for deporting “terrorists” despite his ludicrous order to keep them in the country.
At a Glance
- Federal Judge James Boasberg has given the Trump administration one week to comply with his court order or face contempt charges for deporting Venezuelan gang members
- The Trump administration deported over 200 people to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which the administration labeled as “terrorists and criminal illegal migrants”
- The White House plans to appeal the judge’s order, setting up a high-stakes conflict between judicial overreach and executive authority to protect Americans
- The judge has threatened to appoint an independent prosecutor if the DOJ refuses to file charges, even suggesting government officials could face jail time
Judicial Activism Versus National Security
In yet another glaring example of judicial activism interfering with the Trump administration’s efforts to protect American citizens, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has threatened to hold Trump officials in criminal contempt for having the audacity to deport dangerous gang members. The administration deported over 200 people to El Salvador after identifying them as members of Tren de Aragua, a notorious Venezuelan gang. While most Americans would consider removing violent foreign criminals from our soil to be common sense, Judge Boasberg apparently thinks these individuals deserve five-star accommodations on the American taxpayer’s dime.
The Biden-appointed judge issued his ruling after the administration used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act – which the Supreme Court has already allowed to be implemented – to expedite the removal of these dangerous individuals. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung reaffirmed that the administration remains “100 percent committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country.” Apparently, protecting American citizens from foreign criminals is now a controversial position in some judicial circles.
The Judge’s Ultimatum
In a move that reeks of judicial overreach, Boasberg has given the administration one week to either “assert custody” over the deported individuals – meaning bring dangerous criminals back into the United States – or face contempt proceedings. This is the same judge who complained that his verbal order wasn’t followed before it was even put in writing. Government lawyers have explained that deportation planes were already in the air when the judge’s order was issued, making compliance physically impossible. But facts don’t seem to matter when judicial activism is the agenda.
“The court does not reach such conclusions lightly or hastily. Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to explain their actions. None of their responses have been satisfactory.” – James Boasberg.
Boasberg has threatened an escalating series of punishments, including fines for government officials and even the possibility of criminal contempt charges, which could theoretically lead to jail time. In what world does it make sense to jail American officials for removing violent foreign criminals from our country? And in a particularly telling comment, law professor Robert Tsai summarized the judge’s position as essentially telling the administration: “We’re getting the planes up in the air, and just stonewall the judge.” This perfectly captures the absurdity of the situation.
The Constitutional Showdown
What we’re witnessing is a fundamental clash between branches of government, with the judiciary attempting to hamstring the executive’s constitutional authority to protect our borders and national security. The administration correctly argued that the detainees were confined in Texas, making venue improper in the District of Columbia – but Boasberg dismissed this reasonable legal argument. The judge even rejected the legitimate use of the state secrets doctrine to protect sensitive information about the deportation flights, despite the obvious national security implications.
“That courts can enjoin US officials’ overseas conduct simply reflects the fact that an injunction … binds the enjoined parties wherever they might be; the ‘situs of the [violation], whether within or without the United States, is of no importance,'” – James Boasberg.
The Trump administration is rightfully appealing this judicial overreach. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department will likely refuse to prosecute any contempt charges, forcing Boasberg to appoint a special prosecutor if he wishes to continue his crusade. While the judge claims he can force executive officials to bring foreign criminals back to American soil, the reality is that President Trump has constitutional authority over immigration enforcement. This case represents yet another example of activist judges attempting to legislate from the bench and undermining the administration’s lawful efforts to protect American citizens from dangerous foreign threats.
