A federal judge is moving toward holding the Trump administration in contempt for defying a court order to halt deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members. Judge James Boasberg accused officials of likely acting in “bad faith” by continuing flights to El Salvador after his March 15 ruling, arguing the government ignored due process protections. The administration claims the planes were over international waters when the order was issued, making compliance impossible, but Boasberg dismissed that reasoning as legally shaky.
Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy criticized the White House for letting political motives override constitutional safeguards. He argued that while immigration enforcement is essential, the administration cannot bypass basic legal procedures. “In the United States, we have due process of law,” McCarthy emphasized, comparing the situation to organized crime cases where speech itself isn’t criminalized but actions like extortion are. His comments reflect concerns that the administration is testing judicial authority to expand executive power.
The Justice Department has invoked the , a wartime statute rarely used in peacetime, to justify mass deportations without hearings. Officials claim the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang constitutes an “invasion,” though many deportees lack U.S. criminal records. Judge Boasberg challenged this rationale, questioning why the government rushed flights hours before his scheduled hearing if national security was truly at stake.
Internal White House emails reveal Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristy Noem orchestrated the deportations, deliberately timing flights to avoid judicial intervention. A senior official admitted they aimed to land planes before courts could act, stating: “This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we’re going to win”. The strategy mirrors past administration efforts to provoke legal battles that could reshape presidential authority.
Critics warn the standoff risks a constitutional crisis. The administration has refused to disclose flight details, citing “state secrets,” but Boasberg noted much withheld information isn’t classified. This opacity troubled McCarthy, who cautioned that conservative principles of limited government erode when the executive branch ignores checks and balances. Even some Fox News analysts admit the legal arguments are tenuous, with Jonathan Turley acknowledging courts traditionally defer to presidents on immigration but stressing “room at the elbows” isn’t unlimited.
President Trump has escalated tensions by attacking Boasberg as a “radical left” judge and urging his impeachment, prompting rare pushback from Chief Justice John Roberts. The confrontation energizes Trump’s base ahead of the 2026 midterms, framing deportations as proof he’s tough on crime. However, it alienates legal conservatives like McCarthy, who stress that respecting due process distinguishes America from authoritarian regimes.
The case now hinges on whether the Supreme Court will intervene. The administration has asked justices to lift lower-court blocks, arguing the judiciary cannot second-guess national security decisions. But with the Court’s 7-2 conservative majority increasingly skeptical of sprawling executive power, Trump’s gamble may backfire. A ruling against him could constrain future presidents’ ability to invoke emergency immigration powers.
As another hearing approaches April 8, the standoff illustrates the GOP’s internal divide between populist impulses and constitutional originalism. While the administration bets on voter approval for expelling “thugs,” legal experts warn shortcuts undermine the rule of law. For conservatives committed to limited government, this case becomes a litmus test: should Ends justify means when securing the border? The answer could redefine presidential authority for generations.
