2025-04-18T08:09:44.000Z

---

In a significant legal ruling, Judge James Boasberg has determined that there is sufficient probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court. This decision arises from the administration's failure to comply with a court order that mandated the cessation of deportations for alleged Venezuelan gang members who have been unable to contest their deportation.

On Wednesday, Judge Boasberg emphasized that the Trump administration must address its non-compliance within a week by allowing the deported individuals to exercise their right to due process in court. The administration has since appealed this ruling, adding to the mounting legal challenges that have plagued many of Trumps executive actions and orders.

But what constitutes contempt of court? What are the potential consequences for the Trump administration, and what if the president simply chooses to disregard a court's directives?

The Context of the Ruling

On March 15, just prior to his ruling, Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order that halted the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which permits the president to detain or deport non-citizens during wartime. This law allows such actions based solely on an individuals citizenship status, bypassing the need for a hearing.

In his order, Boasberg also instructed the government to immediately turn around deportation flights bound for El Salvador. However, only hours after this directive was issued, El Salvadors President Nayib Bukele tweeted that his country had already received 238 members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and 23 members of the notorious Salvadoran gang MS-13 from the United States. Bukele's post mockingly captioned Oopsie Too late with a laughing emoji, highlighting the swift actions taken by the Trump administration.

The deported men are currently being held at the Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism (Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo or CECOT) in El Salvador, a maximum-security facility.

In response to the ruling, former President Trump did not hold back on social media, labeling Boasberg a Radical Left Lunatic and calling for his impeachment. However, Chief Justice John Roberts quickly dismissed Trumps impeachment call, stating that such an action is not a suitable response to judicial disagreements.

Judge Boasberg also demanded the government disclose the flight schedules of the deportation planes to verify whether they could have returned to the U.S. following his restraining order. When the Department of Justice later invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid sharing this information, it intensified the legal standoff.

On April 3, during a hearing, Boasberg further scrutinized the Justice Department's actions, questioning whether they had indeed disobeyed his restraining order. The Justice Department denied any wrongdoing, asserting that the deportation flights had already departed by the time the order was issued. Subsequently, on April 7, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted the administration to continue deportations but insisted that individuals must receive a court hearing before any such actions.

Judge Boasberg's Findings

In his comprehensive 46-page ruling, Judge Boasberg articulated that the actions taken by the Trump administration were enough to establish probable cause for criminal contempt. He emphasized that the deportees were hastily sent to El Salvador without being granted the opportunity to contest their deportations in court, directly violating his temporary restraining order.

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 asserted. He also pointed out that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had publicly endorsed Bukele's post, suggesting that government officials had openly celebrated their defiance of the court's order.

Understanding Contempt of Court

Contempt of court is defined as the willful disobedience of a court's orders or its officers. It can manifest as civil contempt, where an individual fails to comply with a court ruling, or criminal contempt, where there is a deliberate act of disrespect towards a court's authority. Typically, civil contempt does not incur penalties if compliance is ultimately achieved, while criminal contempt can result in fines up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to six months, or both.

According to constitutional law expert Bruce Fein, Flouting a court order would be an impeachable offense for failing to faithfully execute the laws as mandated by Article 2 of the Constitution. This article outlines the powers and responsibilities of the U.S. president, including the obligation to ensure laws are executed faithfully.

Next Steps for the White House

Judge Boasberg has provided the White House with a deadline of April 23 to either reverse its non-compliance with the restraining order by allowing the deported individuals to contest their deportation in court or to identify the officials responsible for disregarding his directive so that legal action can be pursued against them.

The Justice Department has already appealed Boasbergs ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. As it stands, the Trump administration faces over 190 legal challenges against its policies, according to Just Security, a non-partisan digital law and policy journal.

In a related case, the U.S. government recently acknowledged that it had improperly deported a Salvadoran citizen, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, 29, to CECOT, which was categorized as an administrative error. On April 10, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Trump must facilitate Abrego Garcias return to the U.S. Furthermore, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland is currently investigating whether the Trump administration violated an order concerning Abrego Garcias return but has not yet indicated a plan to hold the government in contempt.

Consequences of Non-Compliance

If the White House continues to ignore the court's orders, Judge Boasberg has signaled that he could hold specific officials in contempt. However, it is important to note that any convicted officials could receive pardons from the president. Trump has previously exercised this power in 2017 when he pardoned former sheriff Joe Arpaio, who was found guilty of criminal contempt for failing to adhere to a court order prohibiting racial profiling of Latinos.

Typically, as demonstrated in this instance, the government opts to appeal court decisions. Appeals can ascend to the Supreme Court, depending on the complexity and significance of the case.

The enforcement of a contempt order ultimately falls to the U.S. Marshals Service, which operates under the Department of Justicea department currently led by the Trump administration. Despite an expectation that law enforcement officials comply with court rulings, this has not always been the reality.

Fein further elaborated that the court could also consider holding Trump himself in contempt. Additionally, Congress has the authority to impeach him for violating court orders; however, a successful impeachment would necessitate a majority vote in the House and a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Currently, the House has 218 Republican members and 213 Democrats, while the Senate comprises 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents.

Fein warns that with Congress presently under Republican control, action is unlikely unless driven by public demand through calls, emails, and protests. The bottom line, he stated, is whether we remain a government of laws rather than a government of men depends on Congress and ultimately, the American people.

Historical Context: Previous Violations

Historically, the Trump administration has not been a stranger to court order violations. During his first term in 2017, Trump enacted an executive order that banned nationals from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S. This directive faced multiple legal challenges, with various federal judges suspending the ban due to its unconstitutional nature. Despite these rulings, travelers and refugees reportedly faced detainment by Customs and Border Protection agents at airports.

In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in a close 5-4 ruling, effectively reversing the lower courts suspensions.

While Trumps contentious relationship with the judiciary is well-documented, he is not the first president to clash with the courts. Historical examples include Abraham Lincoln, who ignored Chief Justice Roger Taney's orders during the Civil War, and Richard Nixon, who was ultimately forced to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling during the Watergate scandal.

Presidents have occasionally been compelled to enforce Supreme Court contempt orders, as demonstrated by President Dwight Eisenhower, who dispatched troops to enforce desegregation rulings in Arkansas in 1957. However, there have been instances where presidents have defied Supreme Court rulings, such as Andrew Jacksons refusal to enforce a ruling that protected the Cherokee nations land rights.