The Department of Justice pushed back forcefully this week against accusations that the Trump administration defied a federal court order when it deported approximately 100 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March—an extraordinary clash that now pits Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has launched a criminal contempt inquiry into who authorized the flights and why.
In a sharply worded filing submitted late Tuesday, DOJ officials argued that Noem—acting under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), an 18th-century wartime statute rarely invoked in modern times—acted lawfully when she approved the transfer of Venezuelan detainees already in transit. According to DOJ, Noem signed off only after receiving internal legal guidance that the judge’s order did not apply to individuals who had already left U.S. soil.
“That decision was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the court’s order,” DOJ attorney Tiberius Davis wrote.
But Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee and one of the most outspoken critics of the administration’s use of the AEA, hinted in a contentious hearing last week that he believes the government kept deporting migrants in defiance of his instructions—and he intends to identify every official involved.
“I certainly intend to find out what happened on that day,” Boasberg warned, signaling that contempt charges remain on the table.
The legal battle is quickly morphing into a major constitutional confrontation over the limits of judicial oversight in matters of immigration, national security, and wartime statutory authority.
The Clash: What Happened in March?
The controversy began when DHS, operating under President Trump’s sweeping deportation agenda, rounded up roughly 100 Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, originally passed in 1798. Invoking that law allows the executive branch broad powers to detain and remove nationals from countries deemed hostile during conflict—something past administrations have never used for asylum seekers.
Boasberg intervened mid-March, issuing an emergency directive instructing the government to reverse any flights underway and return detainees to U.S. custody.
But DHS proceeded with the removals.
What DOJ says happened
Two flights were already airborne when the judge issued his recall directive
DOJ argues that those removals were “already completed,” even if migrants were still physically in U.S. custody
A third flight took off after the order, but DOJ insists those passengers were being processed under standard immigration statutes—not the AEA—and therefore were not covered by Boasberg’s recall
DHS then transferred the detainees to El Salvador for holding, where they remained for months
All 100 migrants were ultimately returned to Venezuela in a prisoner swap deal this summer.
Judge Boasberg: Order Was Clear — Flights Should Have Been Stopped
While DOJ argues the judge’s oral directive was not binding and its later written order applied only prospectively, Boasberg’s camp is unconvinced.
Boasberg maintains:
His order applied to all flights, regardless of status
DHS was fully aware of the recall
Continuing the deportations was a direct violation of court authority
The judge has now demanded the administration name everyone involved in the decision chain. DOJ’s filing lists:
Kristi Noem, Homeland Security Secretary
Drew Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General
Emil Bove, then–Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General
Joseph Mazzara, DHS Acting General Counsel
Boasberg has suggested he may subpoena officials, review internal communications, and even consider criminal referrals if he concludes the administration acted willfully.
Why the Alien Enemies Act? A Rarely Used Legal Weapon
Legal scholars note that the AEA—part of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts—has almost never been used in modern immigration enforcement. Historically it functioned as an emergency wartime power during conflicts with foreign powers.
Using it on Venezuelan migrants:
bypasses asylum protections
allows rapid expulsion
limits judicial review
dramatically expands DHS authority
Civil rights groups have accused the administration of resurrecting the AEA as a legal workaround to avoid the constraints of traditional immigration statutes.
Kristi Noem’s Expanding National Security Portfolio
This episode further cements Noem—already a prominent figure in Trump’s second-term Cabinet—as a central architect of the administration’s most aggressive immigration policies.
Since taking office, Noem has:
Ended TPS for Venezuelan, Haitian, and Somali nationals
Ordered mass ICE raids in sanctuary states
Authorized multi-state military involvement in border security
Directed DHS attorneys to pursue “maximum permissible removal authority”
Critics claim the Boasberg dispute shows DHS is testing the boundaries of legal oversight. Supporters argue the judiciary is improperly meddling in executive war powers.
Political Reactions: A Brewing Constitutional Fight
Republicans
GOP lawmakers have rallied behind Noem, accusing Boasberg of judicial activism:
“A judge cannot micromanage wartime deportations.” — Sen. Tom Cotton
Democrats
Democrats say the administration is intentionally undermining court authority:
“This is lawless behavior. The courts said stop, and they kept going.” — Rep. Pramila Jayapal
Legal Experts
Constitutional scholars are split:
Some say the judge overstepped by intervening in AEA operations
Others call DOJ’s interpretation “strained,” warning it could set a dangerous precedent
What Happens Next?
Judge Boasberg could:
Compel testimony
Demand internal documents
Issue contempt citations
Refer individuals for criminal prosecution
DOJ will likely:
Argue the judge exceeded his authority
Maintain DHS relied on privileged legal advice
Seek to narrow or limit the scope of the inquiry
Meanwhile, immigration advocates worry that the administration will use the AEA more aggressively now that DOJ is defending its legality.
Bottom Line
The deportation of 100 Venezuelans has triggered a high-stakes battle over:
executive vs. judicial authority
wartime statutes vs. modern immigration law
Kristi Noem’s expanding power
the Trump administration’s new phase of mass removals
With a criminal contempt probe looming and a Cabinet secretary in the spotlight, this fight is far from over — and could reshape the legal landscape of immigration enforcement for years to come.
News
My Parents Disowned Me In Court – So I Revealed A Family Secret He Couldn’t DENY
PART 1 — The Day My Father Denied Me I’ve heard people say you can feel the weight of history…
My Parents Said I Was A Useless Failure And Threw Me Out “Go Live In The Streets” Dad Yelled — They Didn’t Know I Earn $15 Million A Year, So I Just Smiled And Left. Three Weeks Later…
PART 1 — Thrown Out Like Dead Weight My name’s Adrien, I’m 32, and I can tell you straight up:…
At My Dad’s Funeral, My Brother Mocked Me, Saying, ‘She’s Just Here For The Money.’ Then The Lawyer Arrived, And Dad’s Shocking Video Made Him Pale.
PART 1 — The Funeral Where Everything Broke My father’s funeral was the kind of event he would have hated—cold…
My Sister Mocked My Kids, Calling Them ‘Mediocre.’ I Smiled, Said, ‘You Never See Us Again,’ And Left. Then, I Cut Off Her Kids’ College Fund.
PART 1 — The Toast That Ended Everything Champagne is supposed to taste like celebration—like victory, or at least expensive…
My Cousin Was The Golden Boy, While I Was The Family’s Joke. At The Reunion, My Aunt Gushed About His Job. I Said, “I Just Signed His Paycheck.”
PART 1 — The Invitation and the Golden Boy Have you ever walked into a family gathering and felt the…
My Brother Stole The Family Business And Kicked Us Out. “You Are Finished.” I Started From Scratch With $500. A Year Later, I Own A Stake In His Place.
PART 1 — The Day Ethan Stole Everything Some betrayals announce themselves loudly—shouting matches, slammed doors, court dates. Others come…
End of content
No more pages to load
