Judge Boasberg Holds Trump Administration in Contempt Over Deportation Flight Information

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Trump administration for failing to meet a court-ordered deadline to provide details about deportation flights to El Salvador. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg accused the administration’s legal team of evading their obligations to submit crucial information, potentially escalating an ongoing legal battle between the executive branch and the judiciary.

The dispute centers on President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the gang Tren de Aragua. Boasberg had previously issued an emergency restraining order, temporarily blocking the administration from utilizing the 1798 law for deportations and ordering any flights already in the air to return to U.S. soil immediately.

However, just hours after the restraining order was issued, a plane carrying hundreds of U.S. migrants, including Venezuelan nationals removed under the controversial law, landed in El Salvador. This prompted Judge Boasberg to demand more information from the government, initiating a fact-finding hearing to determine whether the Trump administration knowingly defied his order and to ascertain the number of individuals deported.

The administration’s initial response was deemed insufficient by the judge. Instead of providing the requested information, the government submitted a brief six-paragraph declaration from a regional ICE office director in Harlingen, Texas. The declaration stated that Cabinet secretaries were "actively considering whether to invoke the state secrets [act] privileges over the other facts requested by the Court’s order."

Boasberg found this response "woefully insufficient," criticizing the government for once again evading its obligations to submit information about the flights, even after he offered the opportunity for them to do so under seal. He noted that the filing was submitted hours late and failed to answer his specific questions.

The judge emphasized that a regional ICE official could not adequately attest to Cabinet-level discussions regarding the state-secrets privilege, pointing out that the official’s declaration was based solely on his "unsubstantiated understanding."

To address the situation, Boasberg issued a new order, requiring the Trump administration to submit a brief by March 25 explaining why it did not violate his order by failing to return the individuals in question on the two earliest planes that arrived from El Salvador to the U.S. on March 15. He further ordered a sworn declaration by a person with direct involvement in the Cabinet-level discussions regarding invocation of the state-secrets privilege, to be submitted by March 21, 2025, at 10:00 a.m.

Prior to this escalation, Boasberg had warned the Trump administration of potential consequences for violating his order. Despite the warning, at least one plane carrying deported migrants touched down in El Salvador later that evening. Salvador President Nayib Bukele mockingly commented on the situation on X, saying, "Oopsie, too late."

In the days that followed, government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, including details about whether any planes departed U.S. soil knowingly after the judge’s order, citing national security protections.

Boasberg had specifically requested information on how many planes departed the U.S. on Saturday carrying people deported "solely on the basis" of the proclamation, how many individuals were on each plane, where the planes landed, what time each plane took off from the U.S., and from where.

The judge’s firm stance suggests a determination to uphold the authority of the court and to ensure transparency regarding the administration’s deportation practices. The standoff highlights the potential for clashes between the executive and judicial branches when national security concerns intersect with judicial oversight.

The case is likely to draw increased scrutiny as the new deadlines approach. The administration’s response will be closely watched to determine whether it complies with the judge’s orders and provides the requested information, or whether it continues to invoke national security privileges to shield its actions from judicial review.

The dispute also raises questions about the appropriate balance between executive power and judicial oversight in matters of immigration and national security. The invocation of the state-secrets privilege adds another layer of complexity, potentially limiting the court’s ability to access critical information and assess the legality of the administration’s actions.

The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for future immigration enforcement policies and the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. It also underscores the importance of transparency and accountability in government actions, particularly when they involve the rights and liberties of individuals.