The Trump administration has launched appeals against two federal judges’ efforts to scrutinize whether officials defied orders halting migrant deportations, escalating tensions between the executive and judicial branches.
On Wednesday, the Justice Department challenged a finding by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that there was “probable cause” to believe officials violated his March 15 order to stop the deportation of 238 alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. Boasberg, who cited the rarely used 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, warned that criminal contempt charges could be on the table.
In a separate case, the administration also appealed Judge Paula Xinis’ order demanding officials explain their failure to prevent the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident, and provide documentation of efforts to secure his return.
The Justice Department argues that these rulings overstep judicial authority.
“A single district court has inserted itself into the foreign policy of the United States and has tried to dictate it from the bench,” DOJ lawyers wrote in a Fourth Circuit filing, calling for “emergency relief.”
Mounting Legal Tensions
The administration is facing over 150 legal challenges to its policies. Critics say the government has at times delayed or ignored court orders, suggesting an erosion of respect for judicial authority. Both judges involved were appointed by President Barack Obama, leading to political friction.
Following Boasberg’s deportation block, Trump even called for the judge’s impeachment—a move Chief Justice John Roberts sharply criticized, stating that judicial disagreements should be handled through appeals, not political threats.
The U.S. Supreme Court has already intervened in both cases this month:
– On April 7, the court lifted Boasberg’s deportation block under the Alien Enemies Act, but emphasized that migrants must be given a chance to challenge removal in court.
– On April 10, the court told the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, but did not endorse Judge Xinis’ stronger mandate to “effectuate” the return—language DOJ claims is vague and excessive.
Judge Xinis pushed back, asserting the government’s interpretation “flies in the face of the plain meaning of the word.”
Diplomatic vs Judicial Power
The DOJ insists that courts cannot force the executive branch to take specific diplomatic actions:
“The federal courts do not have the authority to press-gang the President or his agents into taking any particular act of diplomacy,” the filing said
With both sides likely to pursue appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, the conflict underscores ongoing constitutional battles over immigration, presidential authority, and the rule of law under Trump’s leadership.
