A federal judge in Washington found Wednesday there was probable cause that the Trump administration engaged in criminal contempt of court for refusing to comply with his order stopping the deportation of migrants under a centuries-old wartime law.
Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia criticized the Trump administration for proceeding with flights to deport migrants accused of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, who were among the first to be removed from the country under President Donald Trump’s proclamation.
Two civil rights groups had filed a lawsuit to halt the removals based on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, leading Boasberg to issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop these actions.
“Rather than comply with the Court’s Order, the Government continued the hurried removal operation,” Boasberg wrote in a detailed 47-page decision on Wednesday.
“Early on Sunday morning — hours after the Order issued — it transferred two planeloads of passengers protected by the TRO into a Salvadoran mega-prison.”
Boasberg determined that the actions of the U.S. government “demonstrate a willful disregard” for his temporary restraining order, which he noted was “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”
“The Court does not reach such [a] conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” Boasberg stated.
“None of their responses has been satisfactory.”
In an accompanying two-page order, Boasberg outlined two options for the U.S. government: to purge its contempt or to provide a legal brief identifying individuals knowledgeable about the decision to ignore his court order.
If the U.S. government chooses to purge its contempt, it must file a legal brief explaining the steps taken and future actions planned to address the violation.
Conversely, if the Trump administration opts not to purge its contempt, it must file a legal brief detailing which officials decided not to halt the transfer of individuals out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16.
Both briefs are required to be submitted by April 23.
Boasberg has previously demanded information from the U.S. government regarding the flights, particularly whether the planes could have returned to the United States to comply with his verbal order, which he followed with a written instruction.
The Trump administration invoked the state secrets privilege as the rationale for withholding information concerning the flights.
The U.S. government had transferred more than 260 migrants to El Salvador, including 137 alleged Tren de Aragua members under Trump’s proclamation.
Despite the government’s refusal to disclose specific flight details, Boasberg found evidence indicating that planes took off after he issued his verbal order.
“Although the Government has refused to provide the particular details, all evidence suggests that during the short window that the Court was adjourned, two removal flights took off from Harlingen — one around 5:25 p.m. and the other at about 5:45 p.m,” Boasberg noted.
He reiterated his position during a contempt hearing on April 3, where he expressed disappointment with the U.S. government’s conduct, claiming they “acted in bad faith” throughout the proceedings.
The Supreme Court has since vacated the court order issued by Boasberg, citing that migrants must file their challenges to the Alien Enemies Act removals in the court with jurisdiction over their detention.
In his decision, Boasberg addressed the notable question of how he could find the U.S. government likely committed contempt, even after the vacating of his order.
He asserted that the “determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect … does not excuse the Government’s violation.”
“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 emphasized.
His temporary halt on the removals has drawn criticism from both Trump and other government officials, highlighting the tensions surrounding the administration’s immigration policies and the legal battles that ensued.
image source from：https://rollcall.com/2025/04/16/judge-starts-contempt-of-court-process-over-us-immigration-moves/
