In a heated courtroom battle on Monday, a federal judge confronted a Department of Justice lawyer over the Trump administration’s apparent failure to comply with an order to temporarily halt deportations. The ruling, based on an 18th-century law, sparked intense scrutiny as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg questioned why key details regarding deportation flights over the weekend were being withheld.
A Tense Exchange in Court
Boasberg didn’t hold back, summarizing the administration’s stance as, “We don’t care, we’ll do what we want.” His original order on Saturday explicitly directed any deportation flights in the air to return to the U.S., yet the government’s actions raised concerns about whether the mandate was truly followed.
Justice Department attorney Abhishek Kambli, defending the administration’s actions, insisted that the government had complied with the judge’s written order. According to Kambli, the official written ruling took precedence over the oral directive issued in an emergency hearing earlier that day. “We believe that we’ve complied with the order,” Kambli asserted.
A Question of Compliance
Boasberg wasn’t convinced. “An order is an order,” he shot back, expressing clear frustration at the administration’s justification for proceeding with deportations. He pushed Kambli on the number of flights, how many deportees were on board, and how many planes were in the air at the time. However, Kambli refused to provide specifics, citing national security concerns.
“I am only authorized to say what we have said in the court filings,” Kambli responded. This refusal to disclose details only intensified Boasberg’s frustration. The judge then ordered Kambli to provide written answers to those questions by noon on Tuesday, along with an official explanation as to why that information couldn’t be shared in court.
Boasberg didn’t hide his exasperation. “Since apparently my oral orders don’t appear to carry much weight, I will issue a written order,” he said, scheduling a follow-up hearing for Friday.
The Justice Department Fights Back
As the courtroom drama unfolded, the Justice Department made a bold move. Just before the hearing, they sent a letter to a federal appeals court seeking to have Boasberg removed from the case. Their argument? The judge’s inquiries into the administration’s deportation initiative posed a serious threat to national security.
“The Government cannot—and will not—be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture without orderly briefing and a showing that these questions are somehow material to a live issue,” the letter stated. The department further argued that responding to the judge’s inquiries under the proposed timetable was “flagrantly improper” and posed “grave risks” to government operations.
The Legal Battle Over an 18th-Century Law
At the heart of the controversy is the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798. This legislation grants the president the authority to deport individuals from a “hostile” nation during wartime or in cases of “invasion” by a foreign government. However, this law hadn’t been invoked since World War II.
The administration claims the law justifies its deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. The move has drawn sharp legal challenges, with opponents arguing that the law is being misapplied.
The Timeline of the Deportation Orders
The courtroom battle was set in motion on Saturday when Boasberg issued his emergency order temporarily blocking Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected gang members. During the emergency hearing, he instructed the Justice Department lawyer to “immediately” notify officials that any flights carrying deportees covered by the ruling must be halted or turned around.
However, the administration later revealed in a Sunday filing that some individuals had already been removed from U.S. territory before the order was issued. The government contended that they had followed the judge’s directive to the best of their ability given the timing.
“However that’s accomplished—whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane—I leave to you,” Boasberg had said during the hearing. “But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”
Despite this, the Justice Department pushed back against Monday’s hearing altogether. In a last-minute effort, they sought to cancel the proceedings, arguing that the questions about flight locations and deportation logistics raised issues of national security and foreign relations that were “neither material nor appropriate.”
What Happens Next?
With another hearing scheduled for Friday, this legal battle is far from over. The case has raised pressing questions about executive power, judicial oversight, and the balance between national security and due process.
Boasberg’s firm stance suggests that the court will continue to press for answers. The Justice Department’s attempt to remove him from the case signals that the administration is ready to fight back hard. Whether this turns into a prolonged courtroom showdown remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: this case has the potential to set major legal precedents on immigration enforcement and presidential authority.
As this story unfolds, the stakes remain high—not just for the individuals caught in the deportation proceedings but for the broader legal framework governing executive power in the U.S.
Login