In a dramatic escalation, a federal judge with a long track record of liberal rulings has threatened the Trump administration with criminal contempt of court after immigration officials carried out deportation flights in defiance of a last-minute judicial order. The move has drawn sharp criticism from conservatives, who say it’s yet another example of activist judges attempting to override lawful executive authority on immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg claimed the administration “willfully violated” his verbal directive to stop deportation flights to El Salvador, even though the flights were already in progress and reportedly beyond U.S. airspace by the time the order was issued. The deportations involved over 260 Venezuelan nationals who were determined to be in the country illegally and subject to removal under federal law.
The administration has strongly pushed back, arguing that the court order was issued too late to be implemented and lacked the legal clarity needed to halt operations already underway. Officials also contend that the judge’s verbal directive was not binding in the way a formal written order would be.
Judge Boasberg has now given the administration until April 23 to either reverse the deportations—which experts say would be diplomatically and logistically impossible—or name the individuals involved in carrying out the enforcement action. If the administration doesn’t comply, Boasberg has indicated he may appoint an outside prosecutor to pursue contempt charges, given that the Department of Justice is unlikely to prosecute its own leadership.
Legal analysts point out that criminal contempt charges against federal officials are extremely rare and carry more political weight than legal precedent. Critics argue the move is part of a growing trend where progressive judges act more like political operatives than neutral arbiters of the law.
“This is judicial overreach, plain and simple,” said one senior administration official. “The courts are now trying to micromanage border enforcement—something that clearly falls under the executive branch’s constitutional authority.”
The deportation flights were part of the Trump administration’s broader effort to restore law and order at the southern border, ramp up removals of illegal entrants, and push back against years of open-border policies that have overwhelmed communities and strained public resources. Despite legal interference, the administration has remained firm in its commitment to secure the border and uphold the rule of law.
Conservative lawmakers are rallying around the administration, calling the judge’s actions “a dangerous precedent” and “an abuse of power meant to obstruct immigration enforcement.” There are also growing calls to investigate the judge’s political donations and prior affiliations to determine whether ideological bias is influencing his rulings.
While the legal battle continues to unfold, the message from the Trump administration is clear: it will not be bullied by activist judges. Deportation orders issued through lawful channels will be carried out—and political theatrics from the bench won’t stand in the way of protecting America’s borders.