In a sharply worded ruling issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg announced the initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for what he described as a “willful disregard” of court orders regarding the deportation of over 130 Venezuelan migrants to a prison facility in El Salvador.
The ruling follows the administration’s continued defiance of Boasberg’s March directive to halt deportation flights to El Salvador’s CECOT prison — a facility known for its harsh conditions. The migrants were removed under the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, despite lacking due process and without an opportunity to challenge their removal.
Judge Boasberg expressed deep concern over the administration’s repeated refusal to answer direct questions about who authorized the flights and why they continued after his order was issued. Government attorneys have routinely invoked state secrets or claimed ignorance regarding who gave the green light for the deportations.
Boasberg gave federal attorneys until April 23 to comply with his requests for detailed information. Alternatively, he offered a path to purge the contempt proceedings: the administration must take custody of the deported individuals, enabling them to exercise their constitutional right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus proceedings.
Failing that, prosecutors are expected to submit a declaration identifying who made the decision to ignore the court’s order. “The foundational rule of law,” Boasberg wrote, “requires that such questions be answered. No official, no matter how exalted, is above the Constitution.”
The judge strongly rejected arguments made by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, who had previously suggested that the oral nature of the court’s order diminished its legal force. “Whether oral or written, judicial orders are binding,” Boasberg clarified.
Despite repeated chances to comply or clarify their actions, the administration instead pursued appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. The justices narrowly sided with the administration, vacating Boasberg’s order in a 5–4 ruling, but reaffirmed that migrants have the right to contest their removal under due process protections.
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote. “To allow such disobedience would render the rule of law a mockery.”
While the ruling does not specify the penalties under consideration, criminal contempt can carry significant consequences, including fines and imprisonment. Judge Boasberg noted that if the Justice Department declines to prosecute the case, he will appoint an independent attorney to do so — a step rarely taken in modern legal proceedings.
Boasberg also cast doubt on the administration’s invocation of state secret privilege, noting that his requests were factual and administrative in nature — such as the number of passengers on the flights, their removal status, and timelines — all of which the government has already publicized through official channels.
“This is not a classified national security matter,” Boasberg concluded. “This is about transparency, accountability, and the fundamental expectation that all branches of government must follow the law.”
