President Donald Trump departs after signing an executive order at an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden of the White House, Wednesday, April 2, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Evan Vucci).
The Trump administration is pushing back against a federal judge who this week moved to hold government officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to turn around multiple flights carrying Venezuelan migrants who were being deported without due process through the president’s unprecedented use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA).
The Justice Department on Thursday asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., to stay a lower court order issued by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg which the administration says requires it to pursue “two alternative but equally unconstitutional avenues to address supposed violations of a now-vacated [temporary restraining order].”
Boasberg on Wednesday said he had determined that the federal government demonstrated a “willful disregard” for his order, which was “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”
“Either Defendants must aid the court in its efforts to effectuate a contempt prosecution — a step that unconstitutionally commandeers the President’s exclusive and preclusive prosecutorial powers,” the administration wrote in the 23-page filing. “Or, the Defendants may cure contempt by ‘assert[ing] custody’ of individuals who are in the custody of El Salvador — a step that unconstitutionally compels the Executive Branch to persuade or force a foreign sovereign to accede to the court’s demands. Those separation-of-powers violations manifestly warrant this Court’s immediate intervention.”
The administration asserts that the district court’s order effectively functions like an injunction, making it appealable. The DOJ is asking the appellate court for immediate review of the Boasberg’s directive, which it claims inflicts immediate and irreparable harm by subjecting the executive branch to “actions the district court cannot constitutionally require.” An immediate stay is required, the government says, to “prevent further encroachments on the separation of powers.”
