Judge Boasberg Finds Probable Cause to Hold Gov’t in Contempt in Deportations Case

The Supreme Court vacated the order and said the lawsuit was brought in the wrong court.

District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the District Court for the District of Columbia, stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington on March 16, 2023. Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post via AP

District Judge James Boasberg has issued an opinion stating that he has found probable cause that the federal government was in criminal contempt by refusing to comply with his order prohibiting certain deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions ... demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg said in an April 16 opinion.

He said the government would have the opportunity to “purge” its contempt by complying with his order.

Boasberg’s order came after the Supreme Court vacated his orders and said the case was brought in the wrong court.

“The fact that the Supreme Court determined that this Court’s TROs suffered from a venue defect does not affect—let alone moot—the compliance inquiry presently teed up here,” he said.

He said the “obvious way” for the government to comply with his order is to assert custody over individuals who were removed in purported violation of it. That way, he said, the deported individuals could bring habeas challenges to their removals.

Steven Cheung, White House communications director, said the administration planned to “seek immediate appellate relief.”

“The President is 100% committed to ensuring that terrorists and criminal illegal migrants are no longer a threat to Americans and their communities across the country,” he said in a post on social media platform X.

Part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was that the proper avenue for challenging detention under the Alien Enemies Act was through habeas corpus, which means “you should have the body” in Latin. Boasberg had overseen a lawsuit that focused on claims brought under the Administrative Procedure Act. In order to bring a habeas challenge, the justices said, the lawsuit must be brought in the district where the detainees are located.

“The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia,” the April 7 majority opinion reads. Following that decision, two judges in Texas and New York held hearings related to habeas challenges.

Boasberg’s order is the latest escalation in an ongoing battle between the executive and judicial branches, which have encountered a wave of lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s agenda. Trump had previously called for the impeachment of Boasberg and other judges.

District Judge Paula Xinis held a hearing on April 15 during which she indicated that she might similarly find cause that the government is in contempt in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whom the government deported. In that case, Xinis granted expedited discovery, including depositions from administration officials, to determine how it proceeded after her order requiring the facilitation of Abrego Garcia’s return.

Boasberg’s order states that if the government were to choose not to “purge” its alleged contempt, the court would “proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose ‘specific act or omission’ caused the noncompliance.” The court, he said, would begin requiring declarations but could move to either depositions or hearings with live witness testimony.

Boasberg said the next step would be prosecution by an attorney from the government or an attorney appointed by the court, if the government were to decline to appoint one.