Listen to the article
The Justice Department escalated its conflict with a federal judge on Friday, asking an appeals court to block a contempt investigation into the Trump administration’s failure to return planes carrying Venezuelan migrants that were sent to El Salvador in March.
In an extraordinary move, the department also requested the removal of Chief Judge James Boasberg from the case, accusing him of conducting a “radical, retaliatory, unconstitutional campaign” against the administration. The filing sets up a high-stakes confrontation over judicial authority and the executive branch’s compliance with court orders.
The department petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to rule before Monday, when Boasberg is scheduled to hear testimony from a former government attorney who filed a whistleblower complaint. In response, a three-judge panel temporarily suspended Boasberg’s contempt-related order, casting doubt on whether the scheduled hearing will proceed.
The panel, composed of two judges nominated by Trump and one by Biden, clarified that their administrative stay does not represent a ruling on the merits of the government’s requests.
Justice Department officials claimed Boasberg is exhibiting bias and creating “a circus that threatens the separation of powers and the attorney-client privilege alike.” In their filing, they characterized the upcoming hearing as “an endless fishing expedition” rather than “a genuine effort to uncover any relevant facts.”
Boasberg, appointed to the bench by President Obama and serving as chief judge of the Washington, D.C. district court since March 2023, has maintained that a recent appeals court ruling grants him authority to proceed with the contempt inquiry. The judge seeks to determine if there is sufficient evidence to refer the matter for prosecution.
At the heart of the dispute is Boasberg’s assertion that the Trump administration may have “acted in bad faith” by attempting to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador. In an April 16 order, Boasberg stated that he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but found that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote.
The Trump administration has denied any violations, contending that the judge’s March 15 directive to return the planes was issued verbally in court but not included in his written order, creating confusion about legal requirements.
The conflict has drawn sharp political responses. Former President Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment in March, while in July, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing the judge of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi intensified criticism on Friday, accusing Boasberg of engaging in “lawless judicial activism” in a social media post.
The scheduled Monday hearing would feature testimony from former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni, whose whistleblower complaint alleges that a top department official suggested the administration might need to ignore court orders while preparing to deport Venezuelan migrants. A Tuesday hearing was planned for Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, who reportedly conveyed Boasberg’s orders to the Department of Homeland Security.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has submitted a written declaration stating she decided not to return the planes to the U.S. after receiving “privileged legal advice” from the department’s acting general counsel and “through him from the Department of Justice.” Boasberg dismissed this explanation as “cursory” and insufficient to determine whether she willfully violated his March order.
On Friday, Boasberg refused to cancel or delay the hearings, emphasizing the serious human consequences of the case. “This inquiry is not some academic exercise,” he wrote. “Approximately 137 men were spirited out of this country without a hearing and placed in a high-security prison in El Salvador, where many suffered abuse and possible torture, despite this Court’s order that they should not be disembarked.”
The extraordinary legal confrontation highlights growing tensions between the judicial and executive branches as immigration enforcement policies remain a contentious political battleground.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This is a complex case involving the executive and judicial branches. I’m curious to see how the appeals court rules on the DOJ’s requests and whether the judge’s contempt inquiry will be allowed to proceed.
The clash over judicial authority and executive compliance with court orders is quite intriguing. It will be important to follow the legal arguments and precedents cited on both sides.
This dispute highlights the ongoing tensions between the executive and judicial branches over immigration enforcement. I’m curious to see if the appeals court will side with the DOJ or the district court judge.
Allegations of a ‘radical, retaliatory, unconstitutional campaign’ against the administration by the judge are quite serious. The appeals court will need to weigh these claims carefully.
The deportation of Venezuelan migrants is a sensitive and politically charged issue. I appreciate the appeals court taking a measured approach by issuing a temporary stay while considering the merits of the DOJ’s requests.
It will be critical for the courts to balance national security concerns with upholding the rule of law and due process. This case could set an important precedent.
It will be interesting to see how the appeals court navigates this high-stakes confrontation over the limits of executive power and judicial authority. The outcome could set an important precedent.
Regardless of the final ruling, this case highlights the need for clear boundaries and checks and balances between the branches of government.
The Justice Department’s request to remove the judge from the case is an unusual and aggressive move. I wonder what specific actions or rulings by the judge prompted this extraordinary demand.
This case could have significant implications for the scope of judicial oversight and the executive branch’s authority on immigration enforcement matters.