Trump Admin Rebukes Judge: Deportation Stays

Gavel and person opening briefcase in law office

The Trump administration challenges a federal judge’s order demanding the return of a deported MS-13 gang member, setting up a high-stakes legal battle over executive power and judicial authority.

Key Insights

The Justice Department has requested an emergency stay against Judge Paula Xinis’s order to return deported MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Trump’s administration invoked the rarely-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport Venezuelan immigrants alleged to be gang members.
Federal Judge Jeb Boasberg has ordered the administration to explain its non-compliance with court orders regarding deportation flights.
The case highlights a constitutional showdown over separation of powers between the executive branch and judiciary.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rejected calls for judges’ impeachment, stating “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

Constitutional Showdown Over Deportations

President Trump’s administration is firmly pushing back against federal court orders that would halt deportations of individuals the government has identified as gang members. The Justice Department has filed for an emergency stay against Judge Paula Xinis’s order demanding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a deported MS-13 gang member, arguing that forcing the executive branch to retrieve someone already deported exceeds judicial authority. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt emphasized the administration’s position, stating: “We suggest the Judge contact [El Salvador’s] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.”

The confrontation stems from the administration’s decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law last used during World War II, to justify deportations of Venezuelan immigrants by classifying the Tren de Aragua gang as an “invading force.” This controversial legal strategy has met significant resistance in federal courts, with U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg ordering a halt to these deportations and demanding detailed information about flights that had already departed for El Salvador. When El Salvador’s president announced deportees had arrived, Boasberg intensified his scrutiny and began considering contempt proceedings against administration officials.

A legal showdown between Judge Boasberg and the Trump administration has escalated after the deportation of more than 200 Venezuelans, including alleged gang members, despite a court order. @MacFarlaneNews reports on the high-stakes fight over executive power and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/iCRRYXLydE

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) March 21, 2025

Judicial Oversight vs. Executive Authority

The Justice Department has characterized Judge Boasberg’s demands for information about deportation flights as “unnecessary judicial fishing” and “grave encroachments on core aspects of absolute and unreviewable Executive Branch authority relating to national security, foreign relations, and foreign policy.” Administration officials have invoked “state secrets privilege” to withhold certain information, arguing that national security matters fall firmly within executive domain. The clash has raised fundamental questions about the limits of judicial power in reviewing executive actions, particularly those involving foreign policy considerations and national security decisions.

“Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has upheld the initial order blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Patricia Millett voted against lifting the order, with Millett emphasizing the need to address “weighty and unprecedented legal issues” before proceeding. Judge Justin Walker dissented, arguing the case should be handled in Texas courts and warning of potential harm to national security. Henderson noted that while deportations were halted, the ruling does not prevent arrests and detentions under Trump’s proclamation.

Political Dimensions and Enforcement Tensions

The heated legal confrontation has spilled into the political arena, with President Trump and his allies calling for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment following multiple court setbacks to executive actions. These calls prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who asserted that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” The administration maintains that some deportation flights departed before judicial orders were issued, while asserting a third plane did not include deportees under the contested law.

“We suggest the Judge contact [El Salvador’s] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador,” said Karoline Leavitt.

While Judge Boasberg has ordered the administration to provide sworn declarations from officials involved in Cabinet-level discussions about state secrets privilege, the Justice Department continues to resist what it characterizes as judicial overreach. The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the original lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan non-citizens detained in Texas, argues that immigrants must have the opportunity to challenge their gang member designations before deportation. As both sides dig in, this case appears destined to establish important precedents regarding the balance of powers between branches of government.