Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C., has escalated scrutiny of the Trump administration’s March deportation of 137 Venezuelan nationals identified as members of the transnational gang Tren de Aragua (TdA).
The judge has revived a contempt-style inquiry to determine whether senior officials deliberately disregarded his temporary restraining order issued under the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old wartime statute invoked by the administration.
The March operation, ordered by President Trump on March 14, involved swiftly apprehending the men and placing them on flights to El Salvador.
Lawyers representing the detainees sought emergency court intervention, claiming the men had not received due process before removal.
Boasberg issued an order attempting to halt the flights, but two planes were already airborne and a third proceeded under standard immigration law rather than the Alien Enemies Act.
The Supreme Court later ruled that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over the original lawsuit but emphasized that individuals targeted for removal must be given reasonable notice to contest the action.
Despite this ruling, Boasberg has continued his inquiry, citing probable cause that top administration officials may have intentionally ignored his order.
He has requested testimony from two Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyers involved in the March operation, including one later terminated for refusing certain directives, according to Politico.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly confirmed issuing the transfer order based on legal guidance from DOJ attorneys.
Boasberg described the declarations from Noem, former Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as insufficient, demanding more detailed statements from all officials involved, according to The Gateway Pundit.
He noted, however, that it is “premature” to recommend criminal prosecution of Noem.
The inquiry centers on claims by former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, who alleges senior officials intentionally bypassed Boasberg’s instructions.
Reuveni and DOJ official Drew Ensign, who represented the department during the March hearings, are scheduled to testify in mid-December.
Ensign previously told the court he was unaware of imminent deportations even as operations were underway.
Conservative lawmakers and President Trump have criticized Boasberg’s actions, arguing the judge is overstepping judicial authority and interfering with executive functions.
Observers also note Boasberg’s role in overseeing portions of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into Trump’s 2020 election conduct, which has fueled concerns about potential judicial activism.
The case raises significant questions about the separation of powers in national security and immigration enforcement.
While the Supreme Court allowed the administration to continue deportations, Boasberg’s contempt-style review underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring compliance with court orders and maintaining accountability in executive decisions.
The proceedings also highlight ongoing tensions between the courts and executive branch in cases involving wartime powers, deportation authority, and public safety considerations, according to Newsmax.
Federal officials continue monitoring the situation closely, stressing that executive actions must be properly documented, legally defensible and subject to oversight.
Boasberg’s inquiry remains active, with mid-December testimony expected to clarify the decision-making behind the March operation.
Legal experts say the proceedings could set a notable precedent for balancing executive authority and judicial oversight in cases involving national security, immigration and wartime statutes.
Analysts also suggest the case may influence future debates over the scope of judicial intervention in immigration and national security matters.
