Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg has announced plans to launch contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for defying his court order prohibiting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act.

In a detailed 46-page ruling issued on Wednesday, Boasberg stated that there is “probable cause” to hold the administration in criminal contempt due to its “willful disregard” of his directive.

The controversy stems from the administration’s actions on March 15, when it proceeded with deportation flights to El Salvador, despite Boasberg’s explicit order to halt them.

The judge had issued a temporary restraining order to pause the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, citing concerns over lack of due process.

However, the planes continued to their destination, landing in El Salvador with over 130 deportees, many of whom were sent to a notorious mega-prison.

Boasberg’s ruling emphasized that judicial orders must be obeyed, regardless of their perceived validity, until overturned by a higher court.

He referenced a 1967 Supreme Court precedent to underscore this principle, stating, “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.”

The Trump administration has defended its actions, arguing that the planes were already in international waters when the order was issued, rendering it inapplicable.

Boasberg dismissed this claim, noting that the administration had ample opportunity to comply or provide a satisfactory explanation but failed to do so.

The administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime law, has also drawn scrutiny for bypassing customary immigration procedures.

In response to the administration’s defiance, Boasberg outlined a path forward. He indicated that the government could avoid contempt proceedings by taking custody of the deported migrants and providing them with hearings to challenge their removal.

Alternatively, the administration must identify the officials responsible for ignoring the court order, who could then face prosecution.

If the Justice Department, which is under presidential oversight, declines to prosecute, Boasberg vowed to appoint an independent attorney to pursue the case.

The legal battle has escalated tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary.

President Trump and his allies have publicly criticized Boasberg, with the president previously calling for the judge’s impeachment and labeling him an “activist judge.”

These attacks prompted a rare statement from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts defending judicial authority.

The case has also raised concerns about a potential constitutional crisis. Legal experts warn that the administration’s refusal to comply with court orders could undermine the rule of law.

The American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward, which sued over the use of the Alien Enemies Act, have argued that the deportations violated due process rights.

The Supreme Court recently weighed in, clarifying that deportees are entitled to hearings but must pursue them in the Southern District of Texas or their place of detention, not in Boasberg’s court.

Boasberg’s decision comes amid parallel developments in a related case.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, presiding over the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador—has also signaled potential contempt proceedings against the administration for failing to facilitate his return, despite court orders.

The contempt proceedings mark a significant escalation in the ongoing legal and political standoff. Boasberg has given the administration until April 23 to respond, setting the stage for a high-stakes confrontation that could test the limits of executive power and judicial authority.

As the situation unfolds, the judiciary remains a critical check on the administration’s actions, with Boasberg’s rulings drawing both praise and criticism.

Posts on X reflect divided sentiments, with some users hailing the judge as a defender against “illegal conduct,” while others label him a “scumbag” who obstructs the administration’s agenda.