Trump officials face contempt risk for defying court deportation order

A federal judge has found "probable cause" to hold officials in President Donald Trump’s administration in criminal contempt for defying a court order that halted the deportation of over 200 Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 1798 wartime law.

In a sharply worded opinion, US District Judge James Boasberg wrote on Wednesday that government actions displayed “deliberate or reckless disregard” of his March 15 ruling, which barred the deportations to El Salvador.

The decision escalates tensions between the judiciary and the Trump White House, with legal experts calling it one of the strongest judicial rebukes since Trump’s return to office.

Boasberg stated the administration still had a chance to “purge” the contempt by allowing the deported migrants to challenge their removals in court or by naming officials responsible for the decision.

The judge set a deadline of 23 April for compliance. If ignored, he may refer the matter for prosecution or appoint a special prosecutor.

The deportations targeted alleged members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, but lawyers and families of those expelled say many were not gang members and had no opportunity to contest their classification or deportation.

The White House responded swiftly, vowing to seek “immediate appellate relief.” Press Secretary Steven Cheung said the administration was committed to removing individuals it considers “terrorists and criminal illegal migrants.”

In a post on X, Boasberg criticised comments from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who retweeted El Salvador President Nayib Bukele’s mocking reaction to the deportation ruling, writing “Oopsie… Too late.” The judge cited the message as evidence of the administration’s willful defiance.

The Justice Department also pushed back, calling Boasberg’s decision a “judicial power grab,” and indicated it would fight the ruling through all legal avenues.

This case is among more than 150 legal challenges currently facing the Trump administration. Critics say there’s a pattern of ignoring unfavourable rulings, raising concerns over respect for the independence of the judiciary.

Separately, another federal judge in Maryland, Paula Xinis, is probing the government’s failure to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Venezuelan man wrongly deported despite being married to a US citizen.

The Supreme Court upheld an order for his return, but Trump officials argue the court lacks authority to enforce it.

Trump defended the deportation, calling Abrego Garcia an MS-13 gang member and human trafficker, though he has not been charged with any crimes.

Advocacy groups say the administration’s reliance on wartime powers, and its treatment of court orders, undermine constitutional protections.

Legal scholars noted the rarity of federal officials being held in criminal contempt. The last high-profile case involved Trump’s 2017 pardon of former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who had been convicted for defying a court order.

“The government’s conduct in this case is unlawful and a threat to people and our Constitution,” said Skye Perryman, head of advocacy group Democracy Forward, which represents several of the affected migrants.

The administration's repeated use of the Alien Enemies Act has revived debates over executive power, especially as it targets non-citizens based on group affiliations without due process.

Critics argue the law, once used to intern Japanese Americans in WWII, is being repurposed to bypass judicial oversight.