The Trump administration has made a legal counterattack against two federal judges probing whether government officials disobeyed court orders regarding the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. The action represents an escalating confrontation between the executive and judiciary branches.
The US Department of Justice announced on Wednesday evening that it would appeal a decision by US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, DC Boasberg ruled that there was probable cause to believe that government authorities disobeyed his directive to return suspected members of a Venezuelan gang who had been deported on March 15. Boasberg relied on an arcane 18th-century wartime law in his decision and threatened that administration authorities might be charged with criminal contempt.
At the same time, government lawyers made an emergency appeal to the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals to stop US District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland from forcing officials to turn over documents and testify under oath. Judge Xinis is probing whether the government disobeyed her directive by deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a migrant who was reportedly sent erroneously to El Salvador.
In both of its legal disputes, the Trump administration has continued to assert that it acted within the law and faulted the judges for overstepping their authority. “One district court has inserted itself in the foreign policy of the United States and has attempted to dictate it from the bench,” Justice Department attorneys argued in their brief.
The government is now also confronting more than 150 court challenges to its policies. Democratic lawmakers and lawyers contend that the executive branch has sometimes been resistant to fully acquiescing in judicial decisions, questioning its deference to the judiciary’s independence.
These appeals reflect a deeper struggle for authority as courts are increasingly questioning the administration’s management of immigration enforcement and respect for the rule of law.
