Officials from the Trump administration could be held criminally liable for defying a federal judge’s order that temporarily blocked the deportation of individuals accused of being part of a Venezuelan gang, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said on Wednesday.
In a written decision issued in Washington, Judge Boasberg stated that there is “probable cause” to pursue criminal contempt charges against government officials. He found that the administration exhibited a “willful disregard” for his March 15 ruling, which halted deportations to El Salvador under the authority of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
Attorneys and relatives of the deported individuals argue that many of them are not involved with gangs and were denied any opportunity to challenge the U.S. government’s accusations.
This ruling marks the strongest indication yet that a court might seek to penalize the Trump administration since former President Donald Trump returned to office on January 20, intensifying a growing conflict between the judicial and executive branches.
The Justice Department has filed an appeal with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in response to Boasberg’s decision.
Judge Boasberg left the door open for the administration to avoid contempt by complying with his order—specifically, by allowing the affected migrants a chance to contest their deportation in court. He gave the administration until April 23 to either present a plan for compliance or name the officials responsible for defying the order, who could then face prosecution.
Boasberg also highlighted a social media post by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who shared a retweet of El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele mocking the court’s order with the comment, “Oopsie…Too late.”
“Statements from the Defendants suggested that they defied the Court’s ruling deliberately and with apparent satisfaction,” Boasberg wrote.
White House Communications Director Steven Cheung announced on X (formerly Twitter) that the administration plans to seek immediate relief from the appeals court.
A Justice Department spokesperson criticized the ruling, calling it “an underhanded attempt to retain control” over the case and labeling it a “judicial power grab” the department intends to resist “by all means necessary.”
The Trump administration is currently facing more than 150 legal battles over its policy actions. Critics, including many Democrats and legal experts, claim the administration has been slow to comply with court rulings that don’t favor it, raising concerns about its respect for judicial authority.
In a related case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said she would expand her inquiry into whether the administration violated an order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man they admitted was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. However, she stopped short of holding the administration in contempt for now.
The Justice Department has also appealed Xinis’ order, which mandates that officials explain the steps they’ve taken to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.
Boasberg’s stance is more aggressive. He warned that if the administration does not address its contempt, he may require sworn statements from officials or compel them to testify under oath. He also said he could order a government prosecutor to take up the case—or appoint a special prosecutor if the Justice Department refuses.
“This is a strong and significant reprimand of the administration,” said Jonathan Hafetz, a law professor at Seton Hall University.
Trump responded by calling for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment over the deportation block, which drew a rare public response from Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts defended judicial independence, saying that disagreements with rulings should be handled through the appeals process—not impeachment.
This judicial confrontation is part of a broader pattern, as the Trump administration has clashed with several traditionally independent institutions, including universities and law firms.
