Judge James E. Boasberg barred the administration from using an 18th-century law to deport migrants. Does a constitutional crisis loom between Trump and the courts?
A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants without due process under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law previously invoked only during wartime.
Three flights containing more than 200 deportees landed in El Salvador after Chief Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia gave his verbal order to return them to the United States on Saturday. The Justice Department argued Monday that none left the United States after his written ruling came through and that, in any case, the court had no jurisdiction once the aircraft flew over international waters.
Here’s what to know about the judge in the case, what might happen next, and how the dispute fits into Trump supporters’ attacks on the courts and critics’ concerns over a constitutional crisis that could result if President Donald Trump refuses to comply with orders from the judicial branch.
Who is U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg?
James E. Boasberg is a former homicide prosecutor who has served 23 years as a judge in Washington, appointed by presidents of both parties. He took over as chief judge of the high-profile federal trial court in the nation’s capital in March 2023, where he oversaw disputes over grand jury investigations involving former president Donald Trump, including claims of executive privilege over then-Vice President Mike Pence’s testimony before a grand jury. His rulings were upheld by an appellate panel.
A native Washingtonian, the 6-foot, 6-inch Boasberg played basketball for St. Albans School and Yale College, where he graduated with undergraduate and law degrees. He earned a master’s degree in history from the University of Oxford.
Boasberg, 62, who goes by Jeb, has a history of bipartisan support. President George W. Bush appointed him in 2002 to the D.C. Superior Court, which oversees criminal and civil matters in the District, and President Barack Obama named him in 2011 to U.S. District Court.
A law school housemate of Trump-nominated Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, Boasberg has been noted as a feeder judge whose law clerks have been picked for similar posts at the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. named Boasberg presiding judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court from January 2020 to May 2021.
Glenn Kirschner, Boasberg’s supervisor at the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, recalled assigning him the toughest homicide cases. He called Boasberg “a singularly remarkable prosecutor. I say that because he never lost a murder case. And because he would never tell anybody he never lost a murder case. It wasn’t in his identity to talk about himself or his accomplishments.”
Kirschner said: “I don’t think there’s anybody better suited or better equipped to handle these challenges to the independence of the judiciary, or challenges to American democracy. … I am grateful he is in the position he is in because he will remain loyal to the rule of law and the constitution.”
Boasberg oversaw changes to the FISA court after the Justice Department inspector general uncovered numerous errors and omissions in the FBI’s requests to wiretap Carter Page, a Trump campaign adviser, in its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Boasberg barred officials who worked on the matter from future national-security wiretap applications and oversaw or imposed other internal changes at the FBI.
Boasberg also ordered a review of all actions by FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who the inspector general said altered an email that one of his colleagues relied on to surveil Page.
However, Clinesmith pleaded guilty in district court and after neither side objected to his past role in the matter, Boasberg sentenced Clinesmith to probation instead of prosecutors’ request for prison time, gaining Trump supporters’ condemnation.
What happens next?
After its attorney refused to answer detailed questions at a Monday hearing, Boasberg directed the Justice Department to answer by noon Tuesday exactly when the government believes his order stopping the deportation flights went into effect, when and how many flights took off, and how many individuals were transferred into the receiving country’s custody.
Boasberg did not say whether the government violated his order.
Judges rarely find federal agencies in contempt, seeking instead to ensure compliance or good-faith progress toward legal requirements. Still, U.S. officials are subject to the Constitution no matter where they are, including due process protections for people in the United States. The Alien Enemies Act was used in the past to imprison tens of thousands of Japanese Americans during World War II, for which the Congress later apologized.
But courts also are required by precedent to be more deferential to the executive branch in matters regarding foreign relations, war powers and national security, and the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals. Boasberg can push to find out the facts and hold the government accountable. But the question may be whether any other remedy or penalty is available now that the migrants are deported to a Salvadoran prison, with Trump’s Justice Department hardly inclined to pursue a separate criminal contempt prosecution.
That set of circumstances could make the case an unlikely showdown over the constitutional separation of powers that some Trump advisers seem willing to trigger.
It remains unclear how likely a three-judge panel chosen to hear the Trump administration’s appeal of Boasberg’s order would be to block his order after written briefings are due Wednesday.
On Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, Trump White House “border czar” Tom Homan and Justice Department lawyers argued that the administration acted within the bounds of immigration law, questioning variously whether Boasberg’s immediate verbal order Saturday carried the same weight as his written order later, and disputing that U.S. officials were required to turn around planes after they left U.S. territory.
Homan also suggested Monday that the administration would defy the court’s order going forward. “We’re not stopping,” Homan told Fox News. “I don’t care what the judges think — I don’t care what the left thinks. We’re coming.”
Ignoring the usual practice of filing an appeal or an emergency writ of mandamus seeking higher appellate court review, the Justice Department also asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to reassign the case from Boasberg, accusing him of “micromanagement” of the executive branch. The circuit court gave no sign it was considering the unusual request.
What have Trump allies said about defying or impeaching judges?
Trump often attacked judges during his first term in office and afterward, including those who oversaw criminal and civil cases against him.
On Feb. 11, he appeared to draw a line at disobeying a court order that blocked his White House agenda. “I always abide by the courts and then I’ll have to appeal it,” Trump said. “But appeals take a long time.”
Billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance have suggested otherwise. Musk has repeatedly called for impeaching judges who ruled against Trump measures.
“We are witnessing an attempted coup of American democracy by radical left activists posing as judges!” Musk wrote that same day.
“When judges egregiously undermine the democratic will of the people, they must be fired or democracy dies!” he wrote two weeks later, on Feb. 25, adding, “The only way to restore rule of the people in America is to impeach judges.”
Vance prompted questions to Trump, when he posted on X on Feb. 9 that judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power” and shared a post arguing that “judicial interference with legitimate acts of state” is a violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers.
In a 2021 podcast, Vance said if reelected, Trump should defy a court order preventing him from firing federal workers and repeated President Andrew Jackson likely apocryphal quote: “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) posted on social media Tuesday that he would seek Boasberg’s impeachment — to which Musk responded “necessary.” House Republicans have brought or threatened to file articles of impeachment against four other U.S. district judges appointed by presidents of both parties who have ruled against Trump administration actions: Paul A. Engelmayer of Manhattan, John J. McConnell Jr. of Rhode Island and John D. Bates and Amir Ali of D.C.
How has the judiciary and its defenders responded?
Federal judges and their leaders — including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. — have condemned attacks against the courts, saying the judiciary plays a critical role in preserving democracy and a law-abiding society, and must be able to do their jobs with fear of violence or intimidation.
Two federal judges in leadership positions, both appointed by Republican presidents, spoke out last week against threats of violence and impeachment.
“Threats against judges are threats against constitutional government. Everyone should be taking this seriously,” said Judge Richard J. Sullivan, whom Trump appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York City.
Impeachment “shouldn’t be a short-circuiting” of the lawful course of judicial review by appeals courts and the Supreme Court, Sullivan added, and “it is concerning if impeachment is used in a way that is designed to do just that.”
Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati, a George W. Bush appointee, also told reporters after a meeting of the judiciary’s governing body: “Criticism is no surprise as part of the job. But I do think when it gets to the level of a threat, it really is about attacking judicial independence. And that’s just not good for the system or the country.”
Roberts warned Dec. 31 that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions or to revoke their lifetime appointments.
An independent judiciary is among the crown jewels of the American system of government and no other country before had found a way to ensure that both the people and their government respect the law, Roberts wrote.
“Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected,” Roberts wrote in his end-of-year report after Trump was elected to a second term.
He wrote, “Violence, intimidation, and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable.”
