Trump officials face criminal contempt after defying judge’s orders in Alien Enemies Act case

Donald Trump’s administration could be held in criminal contempt after ignoring a federal judge’s court orders to turn planes around carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members deported to a brutal Salvadoran prison under the president’s use of a wartime law.

In a ruling on Wednesday, Judge James Boasberg said the government’s failure to return those flights to the United States demonstrates “a willful disregard” that is “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” he wrote. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Flights were in the air on March 15 when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn the planes around following a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union that challenged their clients’ removal. The judge has repeatedly pressed officials to explain when government lawyers relayed his verbal and written orders to administration officials and who, if anyone, gave the flights a greenlight despite his orders.

“Despite the Court’s written Order and the oral command spelling out what was required for compliance, the Government did not stop the ongoing removal process,” Boasberg wrote Wednesday.

Officials must either fix their mistake by April 23 or submit a filing that identifies who ultimately made the decision to ignore the court’s orders.

The judge accused the administration of “increasing obstructionism” and “stonewalling” to avoid answering any questions about the flights, or who knew about the orders, and when, during a series of hearings to understand why those planes arrived in El Salvador.

“Defendants provide no convincing reason to avoid the conclusion that appears obvious from the above factual recitation: that they deliberately flouted this Court’s written Order and, separately, its oral command that explicitly delineated what compliance entailed,” he wrote in a lengthy memorandum detaining his order.

“Defendants’ conduct, moreover, manifests a willful disregard of the Court’s legally binding proscriptions,” he added. “Given the evidence at this early stage in the inquiry, and offered no persuasive reason to conclude otherwise, the Court finds that there is probable cause that Defendants acted contemptuously.”

This is a developing story