Judge Threatens Contempt Against Trump Team Over Deportation Flights

International

According to BBC News, a U.S. federal judge has warned that the Trump administration could be held in contempt of court for what he described as a “wilful disregard” of a legal order. The issue centers on deportation flights last month that carried more than 200 people to El Salvador, despite a judge’s clear instruction to halt them.

The administration used a centuries-old law—the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, originally created during wartime—to justify the mass deportation. However, Judge James Boasberg strongly objected, stating the government had multiple chances to explain their actions, but none of the responses were acceptable.

In a sharply worded ruling, Boasberg wrote that the court doesn’t make such judgments lightly, but the administration’s actions “echoed defiance.” He said the administration still has a chance to avoid being found in contempt—if it provides a proper explanation and complies with his original order by April 23.

The deportation involved over 200 Venezuelans, who were accused by the White House of being gang members and were sent to a prison in El Salvador. Though Boasberg had placed a temporary restraining order on the deportations on March 15, the administration allowed flights to continue. He even issued a verbal command for the planes to turn back, which reportedly went unheeded.

While the Supreme Court later ruled that Trump could legally use the Alien Enemies Act, Judge Boasberg emphasized that this ruling did not excuse the government’s earlier violation of his restraining order.

The White House, however, pushed back. Spokesperson Karoline Leavitt claimed the deportations had already occurred before the order and labeled the judge’s ruling as legally flawed. Meanwhile, President Trump, on his social media platform TruthSocial, called Boasberg a “troublemaker and agitator” and demanded his impeachment.

In a deal with the U.S., El Salvador has agreed to accept the deportees in return for $6 million in aid. The case underscores a deepening conflict between the judiciary and the White House, with power, legality, and immigration policy at the heart of the storm.