By: Sarah Hall, Legal Correspondent
April 8, 2025
Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court delivered a resounding blow to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg late Monday, April 7, 2025, ruling 5-4 that the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport alleged gang members, effectively gutting Boasberg’s earlier injunctions. The decision, detailed in an unsigned opinion, allows the administration to continue deporting Venezuelan nationals identified as Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador, overturning Boasberg’s orders that had demanded due process for the migrants. But conservatives are sounding the alarm over what the Court didn’t address: Boasberg’s ongoing threat to hold Trump officials in contempt for defying his initial rulings—a move they see as a dangerous overreach by an activist judge.
The Supreme Court’s ruling vacated Boasberg’s March 15 injunction, which had temporarily blocked the deportation of over 130 Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime law Trump invoked to target the gang members. Boasberg had ordered planes carrying the deportees to turn around mid-flight, calling the administration’s actions “problematic and concerning,” as reported by The Washington Post on March 18. When the planes didn’t return—landing in El Salvador instead—Boasberg grilled Justice Department lawyers, accusing them of acting in “bad faith.” “You’re telling me you had no knowledge whatsoever that the planes were in the air?” he demanded of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign during a tense hearing, per NPR on April 3.
Despite the Supreme Court’s smackdown, Boasberg is still mulling contempt proceedings against Trump officials for ignoring his order, a prospect that has conservatives on X, like @StephenM, fuming: “Judge James Boasberg got gutted last night… but it seems he is hell-bent on holding this administration in contempt.”
Dear Jeb Boasberg:
I predict a 0% chance your contempt order will get enforced.
Just like there was a 0% chance those planes full of foreign terrorists were coming back.
Take the loss, dude. https://t.co/XoKuC6VQdc
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 8, 2025
Translation:
Jeb Boasberg is hellbent on holding Trump officials in contempt.
Which must get ignored.
And further escalate a constitutional crisis.
It’s time for House Republicans to open an impeachment probe on Boasberg.
His orders are lawless and dangerous.
He’s unhinged. https://t.co/xkjRoQlL8G
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) April 8, 2025
Margot Cleveland of The Federalist (@ProfMJCleveland) warned that Boasberg’s persistence is a “huge deal,” noting, “The core of his argument has been smashed into dust, but one can still be held in contempt of rulings on appeal.” She added, “This is the kind of judicial overreach that demands Congress act,” suggesting impeachment or dissolving activist district courts as remedies.
2/ Here we have the added nuance that it is called "jurisdiction" when you are speaking of where to bring a case in habeas but courts also call it "venue," so does that matter. Assuming it is "jurisdiction", the argument is the court lacked power so order was void ab initio.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025
4/ Best cases DOJ will find will be that orders entered in cases without jurisdiction are void ab initio and then it will argue that means there can be no violation. I don't know what they'll find with venue.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025
6/6 If I were an angry leftist judge, that's what I would do to try to "punish" Trump Administration while avoiding reversal. We'll get a better sense tomorrow.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 8, 2025
The Supreme Court’s decision, while a win for Trump, came with a caveat: deportees must now be given notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal via individual habeas petitions, rejecting the ACLU’s class-action approach. Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the Court’s three liberals in dissent, arguing the administration’s actions posed “an extraordinary threat to the rule of law,” per the BBC on April 7. But conservatives see Boasberg’s contempt threat as the real danger. “This man is out of control,” wrote @mrddmia on X, while @MAGAJustice22 demanded, “Congress must move to rein in these judges… they could just submit their rulings to The New York Times.”
For Trump supporters, Boasberg’s defiance—despite being overruled—symbolizes a judiciary at war with the administration’s immigration agenda. With deportations already underway, as seen in a White House video from April 6 showing migrants being flown out to “Closing Time,” the focus now shifts to whether Boasberg will double down. If he does, conservatives warn, the battle between the judiciary and the executive could escalate into a full-blown constitutional crisis.
