>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
At the center of the showdown is President Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport suspected members of Tren de Aragua — a brutal Venezuelan gang. As part of a broader crackdown, the U.S. funded a plan to detain these individuals in El Salvador.
Boasberg, however, tried to derail the operation. He issued a shocking order grounding flights that hadn’t yet departed — and demanded planes already en route to turn around midair. Two of the flights, already outside U.S. airspace, continued to their destination. A third flight was allowed to proceed under what officials said were standard immigration protocols, not the Alien Enemies Act at the heart of the lawsuit.
Ensign pointed out the confusion, arguing it was never clear whether Boasberg’s order barred physical departure from U.S. soil or legal removal from U.S. custody altogether.
“Criminal contempt proceedings cannot be predicated on an order so unclear that, weeks later, parties and the court are parsing a hearing transcript to divine its true meaning — and where the executive branch, which is constitutionally charged with the prosecutorial power, believes that no crime was committed at all,” Ensign said.
Even after the Supreme Court stripped Boasberg of jurisdiction over the case, the judge continues to escalate matters, insisting he must investigate what happened while he had authority.
Boasberg claims he found “probable cause” to hold a government official in contempt. He even floated an outrageous idea: forcing the deported gang members to be given a chance to argue for a reversal of their removal. If the DOJ refuses to press charges, Boasberg threatened to appoint a special prosecutor.
The D.C. Circuit has temporarily frozen Boasberg’s contempt push while it reviews the appeal.
Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the Venezuelans in the lawsuit, wants the appeals court to stay out of it — arguing no official contempt proceedings have begun yet.
The controversy over Boasberg’s rogue actions has intensified in recent days. Attorney General Pam Bondi slammed the judge after he was coincidentally assigned yet another Trump administration-related case, this time involving alleged discussions among top officials about military action against Houthi rebels in Yemen.
Raise a Toast with the Bulletproof Trump Whiskey Glass – A Patriotic Statement Piece
“He shouldn’t be on any of these cases. He cannot be objective. He’s made that crystal clear,” Bondi said, calling for the removal of “many judges.”
Bondi didn’t hold back, accusing the system of stacking cases against Trump’s team, noting Boasberg is now presiding over four lawsuits targeting the former president and his administration.
“He cannot be objective,” Bondi warned, blasting the so-called “random assignment” as anything but random.
The situation now rests in the hands of the D.C. Circuit, where the stakes are nothing less than the balance of power between the courts, the presidency — and America’s ability to defend its borders.
