U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has issued a sharply critical 46-page ruling finding members of President Trump’s administration in criminal contempt—even though the Supreme Court had already vacated the very orders Boasberg alleges were violated.
The ruling centers on a March 15 deportation operation carried out under Trump’s new directive invoking the Alien Enemies Act, targeting suspected members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang recently designated a terrorist organization. That night, federal officials deported dozens of detainees to El Salvador, including on two flights that left U.S. airspace before Boasberg’s written order was officially filed, raising significant questions about the legal grounds for his contempt finding.
“In the event that Defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, the Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose ‘specific act or omission’ caused the noncompliance. At the suggestion of the Government in the last hearing, the Court will begin by requiring declarations. Should those be unsatisfactory, the Court will proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs. The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to ‘request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.’ If the government ‘declines’ or ‘the interest of justice requires,’ the Court will ‘appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt,'” Boasberg wrote.
“As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that 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,” Boasberg added. “If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.”
Boasberg’s central argument rests on an oral directive he claims to have given during a Saturday evening hearing, in which he allegedly told DOJ attorneys to “inform your clients” that individuals already deported must be returned to the U.S.—even if their flights had already departed. However, that instruction was not reflected in the written order issued afterward, which only prohibited the “removal” of individuals covered by the proclamation for a 14-day period. Despite that omission, Boasberg insists the administration “willfully” disregarded the Court’s authority by allowing the flights to continue. “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch,” he wrote, accusing officials of making a “mockery” of the judiciary.
But the Supreme Court has already intervened—vacating both of Boasberg’s restraining orders earlier this month and ruling that the D.C. court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case at all. In effect, the foundation for Boasberg’s contempt finding has been nullified. More troubling, Boasberg appears to contradict his own statements from an April 3 hearing, where he admitted the case had landed on his docket through random assignment. Critics argue that since March 15, Boasberg has been laying the groundwork for a contempt ruling—accusing him of setting a deliberate “trap” to create the appearance that Trump officials had defied court orders.
The judge acknowledges that the deportation flights left U.S. airspace before he issued his oral instructions—instructions that were never included in any formal written order. Despite this, he argues that his verbal directive conveyed sufficient intent, and that the government was still obligated to comply or face consequences. In the final pages of his opinion, Boasberg raises the possibility of criminal prosecution, warning that if officials fail to “purge” the contempt by reversing the deportations—an action likely no longer feasible—he will proceed with naming specific individuals for referral.