A high-stakes legal showdown is unfolding in federal court after a Trump-appointed judge indicated he may move forward with criminal contempt proceedings against senior administration officials over disputed deportation flights to El Salvador earlier this year.

The Justice Department has now formally told U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that it has provided all the information it is willing to disclose regarding the March deportation operations — and that if the court finds that response inadequate, it should proceed directly with contempt referrals rather than compel testimony from cabinet-level officials.

The standoff underscores a growing tension between the judiciary and the executive branch, raising serious questions about separation of powers, executive authority, and how far courts can go in compelling testimony from senior officials.

The Disputed Deportation Flights

The controversy centers on a series of deportation flights conducted by the Department of Homeland Security to El Salvador in March. Judge Boasberg has asserted that his court issued instructions requiring the administration to halt the transfer of detainees once legal challenges were pending.

According to filings cited by The Washington Times, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem acknowledged under oath that she ordered the flights to continue despite what the judge interpreted as a directive to stop them.

Administration officials, however, dispute that characterization.

Justice Department attorneys argue that the court’s instructions were not sufficiently clear to constitute a binding order and that Noem did not knowingly or willfully defy the court.

DOJ Pushes Back on Testimony Demand

In a filing submitted Friday evening, the Justice Department made clear that it views any attempt to compel Secretary Noem’s testimony as a violation of constitutional boundaries.

Tiberius Davis, a senior DOJ attorney, argued that forcing a cabinet secretary to testify about internal executive deliberations would breach separation-of-powers principles, especially where legal advice and national security considerations are involved.

“Accordingly, if the court continues to believe its order was sufficiently clear in imposing an obligation to halt the transfer of custody,” Davis wrote, “the court should proceed promptly with a referral” for contempt rather than attempt to compel testimony.

Two senior lawyers — one from DHS and one from DOJ — confirmed that they advised Noem on the legality of the flights but declined to disclose the substance of that advice, citing executive privilege.

Judge Weighs Contempt Referral

Judge Boasberg has signaled that he is seriously considering contempt proceedings, a rare and consequential step when directed at high-ranking executive officials.

Criminal contempt referrals typically involve alleged willful disobedience of a court order. If pursued, the matter would be referred to prosecutors — potentially placing the Justice Department in the unusual position of evaluating charges against officials within the same administration.

Legal experts note that such cases are extraordinarily uncommon and often resolved through negotiation or appellate review rather than prosecution.

“This is one of those moments where constitutional theory collides with political reality,” one former federal prosecutor said. “Courts have authority, but so does the executive branch — and neither likes being told where its power ends.”

A Separation-of-Powers Flashpoint

The administration’s stance reflects a broader argument that judges cannot micromanage executive operations, particularly those involving immigration enforcement and international coordination.

Supporters of the administration argue that deportation logistics, once detainees have left U.S. custody, fall outside the practical reach of judicial control — especially when foreign governments are involved.

Critics, however, argue that courts must retain the power to halt executive actions when legal challenges are pending, or else judicial review becomes meaningless.

Judge Boasberg appears to be weighing those competing principles as he considers next steps.

Political and Legal Implications

The case arrives amid heightened scrutiny of the judiciary’s role in immigration policy and executive authority. In recent years, both Republican and Democratic administrations have clashed with courts over deportations, border enforcement, and asylum procedures.

What makes this case particularly notable is the judge’s background: Boasberg is himself a Trump appointee, complicating efforts to frame the dispute as purely partisan.

If contempt proceedings move forward, the case could set an important precedent regarding:

• Judicial authority over executive enforcement actions
• Limits on compelling testimony from cabinet officials
• Executive privilege and internal legal advice

It could also escalate quickly to appellate courts, where broader constitutional questions would likely be addressed.

What Happens Next

For now, Judge Boasberg has not issued a final ruling on contempt. The administration has effectively dared the court to proceed, while drawing a firm line against further disclosures or testimony.

Observers expect the judge to either:

• Refer the matter for contempt proceedings, or
• Seek appellate clarification before taking such a dramatic step

Either path would carry significant consequences.

As the legal battle continues, the case stands as a reminder of the fragile balance between branches of government — a balance tested most sharply when courts and presidents collide over the limits of their power.