In a move that has ignited a legal and political firestorm, the Trump administration ignored a federal judge’s order to halt deportation flights carrying hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members, sources familiar with the matter told ABC News. The controversial decision to continue with the flights despite judicial intervention has raised significant questions about executive power and compliance with the rule of law.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the Washington, D.C., District Court issued a verbal directive on Saturday, instructing the administration to turn around any planes that had already left U.S. airspace if they were still in transit. “You shall inform your clients of this immediately. Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States,” Boasberg stated during a court hearing.
Despite the order, top officials in the Trump administration reportedly determined that because the flights had already reached international waters, they were beyond the court’s jurisdiction. This calculated decision allowed the planes to continue their course, transporting the alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) to El Salvador, where they were set to be detained.
Sources indicated that the administration deliberately expedited the takeoff to ensure the planes were airborne before the judge could intervene. This strategic timing, they said, was aimed at securing the deportations before legal obstacles could arise.
During the hearing, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), blocking the deportation of non-citizens affected by the administration’s Alien Enemies Act (AEA) proclamation for at least 14 days. Under the TRO, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was supposed to retain custody of these individuals while legal proceedings continued. However, the administration argued that national security concerns and “operational reasons” necessitated the flight’s completion.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt denied that the administration had refused to comply with the court order, insisting that it was issued only after the flights had departed. “The written order and the administration’s actions do not conflict,” she said in a statement Sunday evening. Leavitt further contended that “federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President’s conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion.”
On the same day, the Trump administration filed an emergency request with the D.C. Circuit Court, seeking a stay of Boasberg’s ruling. In its filing, the administration described the TRO as “unprecedented” and argued that the judge lacked the authority to intervene in what it characterized as a national security matter.
“This Court should halt this massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority to remove people that Defendants had determined to be members of TdA, a group the President and the Secretary of State have found to be a threat to national security,” wrote a Justice Department attorney in the emergency motion. The filing further warned that allowing the TRO to stand could set a dangerous precedent where district courts could block urgent national security actions based solely on the filing of a complaint.
President Donald Trump proclaimed on Saturday declaring that Tren de Aragua was engaged in “irregular warfare” against the United States. Invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, Trump asserted his authority to deport suspected gang members without judicial oversight. His administration maintains that actions taken under the AEA are not subject to judicial review and that the courts have “no lawful basis” to block the implementation of the order.
The legal battle over the administration’s deportation policy is set to intensify in the coming days. The D.C. Circuit Court has ordered attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the underlying case to file a response by Tuesday at 5 p.m., setting the stage for a high-stakes showdown over executive authority and judicial oversight.
The dispute underscores a broader conflict between the Trump administration and the judiciary over immigration enforcement. While the White House frames its actions as necessary to protect national security, critics argue that bypassing the courts in such a manner undermines the constitutional system of checks and balances.
With legal challenges mounting and political tensions rising, the fate of future deportations under the Alien Enemies Act remains uncertain. The administration’s defiant stance has drawn both praise from supporters who see it as a tough-on-crime approach and condemnation from legal experts who warn of dangerous overreach.
As the controversy unfolds, all eyes will be on the courts to determine whether the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies will be allowed to continue without judicial intervention—or whether the rule of law will prevail in the face of executive defiance.
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings