Two separate federal judges have rebuked the Trump administration for failing to comply with court orders in an ongoing deportation case, raising the possibility of contempt proceedings. Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland scolded officials for submitting incomplete and evasive responses to requests for information, accusing them of a willful refusal to comply. Similarly, Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C. has threatened contempt over deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, invoking the ire of federal judges who have accused Trump’s lawyers of acting in bad faith.
Following President Trump’s use of the wartime immigration law to immediately deport individuals to El Salvador, a wave of court proceedings and appeals ensued. The administration’s lawyers have been criticized for withholding information from the court, sparking frustration from judges who have accused them of defying orders. Xinis specifically called out the administration’s refusal to respond to interrogatories regarding the release of a Maryland man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The Supreme Court upheld Xinis’s ruling that the government must facilitate his release, with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals clarifying the definition of “facilitate.”
Xinis has ordered an expedited discovery period to determine whether the administration has acted in good faith, potentially leading to contempt proceedings if they fail to comply or indicate bad faith. Boasberg has found probable cause to hold officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to return deportation flights. Although a federal appeals court has paused the contempt proceedings, further declarations have been requested with the possibility of officials testifying under oath. If they fail to comply, Boasberg may refer the case to the Justice Department for prosecution.
The uncertainty surrounding the next steps in these cases has left the administration at odds with the judiciary, with officials criticizing so-called activist judges for obstructing their immigration agenda. Trump officials have argued that court actions limit the Executive’s authority to remove dangerous individuals, who they claim pose threats to the American people. Despite these challenges, the Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, with due process protections required for individuals facing removal.
The ongoing legal battles related to immigration enforcement underscore the contentious relationship between the Trump administration and the judiciary. Critics have accused officials of obstructing court orders and failing to comply with legal obligations, leading to the possibility of contempt proceedings. As the cases in Maryland and Washington, D.C. continue to unfold, the outcome remains uncertain, with judges weighing the administration’s actions and potential consequences for defying court orders. Despite pushback from the White House, the judiciary is upholding the rule of law and ensuring that due process protections are upheld in immigration cases.
