In a heated hearing at the U.S. District Court in Washington, Judge James E. Boasberg questioned the Department of Justice (DOJ) over deportations conducted by the Trump administration. The hearing focused on the legality and circumstances of deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the wartime Alien Enemies Act. Judge Boasberg challenged the DOJ's approach, suggesting that their actions disregarded judicial authority. This came after a weekend where deportations were carried out despite an oral order from Boasberg to return any deportees still airborne.
During the proceedings, Boasberg pressed a top-ranking DOJ lawyer about the deportations, emphasizing the court's jurisdiction. He argued that his powers extended beyond continental borders, stating, "I think my equitable powers are pretty clear" and "It doesn't matter if you're in U.S. airspace or not." These remarks underscored Boasberg's stance that judicial orders should be respected regardless of geographic location.
The crux of the debate revolved around flights carrying deportees that had already left U.S. airspace. The DOJ contended that these flights could not be turned around once airborne. Boasberg called this argument "a heck of a stretch," questioning whether President Donald Trump possessed "extra" powers once planes crossed international waters. Despite being pressed for details, Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli stated he was not authorized to discuss specific aspects of the flights publicly.
The controversy led to Boasberg issuing an oral order on Saturday, instructing the DOJ to order the return of any deportees still airborne. However, this order appeared to be ignored, prompting Boasberg to declare he would issue a written order outlining the information he required from the DOJ by midday Tuesday. He remarked on the apparent disregard for his oral directive, stating, "since apparently, my oral orders don't appear to carry much weight."
The DOJ's actions prompted concerns of a constitutional crisis, with Boasberg suggesting their position was effectively "we don't care, we'll do what we want." This sentiment was echoed by lawyer Lee Gelernt, who warned, "There has been a lot of talk the last couple of weeks about a constitutional crisis," adding, "I think we're getting very close to that."
The Department of Justice had requested to have Boasberg replaced as the district court judge overseeing the case. This request cited an alleged "inappropriate exercise of jurisdiction" by Boasberg. However, their attempt to cancel the hearing was unsuccessful, and Boasberg continued to challenge the DOJ's stance.
Boasberg's written order required the government to provide detailed responses to several questions related to the deportation flights. It stated:
"The Government shall file a Notice, which may, if necessary, be sealed in part, setting forth: 1) A sworn declaration that no one on any flight departing the United States after 7:25 p.m. on March 15, 2025, was removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue; 2) A sworn declaration setting forth when the Proclamation at issue was signed, when it was made public, and when it went into effect; 3) The Government's best estimate of the number of individuals subject to the Proclamation currently remaining in the United States and how many are currently in U.S. custody; and 4) The Government's position on whether, and in what form, it will provide answers to the Court's questions regarding the particulars of the flights."
The order further mandated:
"If the Government takes the position that it will not provide that information to the Court under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary."