April 16, 2025
Chief Judge James Boasberg found probable cause that Trump administration officials committed criminal contempt of court when deportation flights landed in El Salvador on March 15, 2025, minutes after he ordered them turned back.
Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on March 15, 2025 to deport 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador CECOT prison — the first use of the act against a civilian gang
Deportation planes landed in El Salvador while Chief Judge Boasberg's oral TRO was in effect, requiring them to turn back
Boasberg found probable cause of criminal contempt on April 16, 2025 — the most direct defiance of a federal court order in modern U.S. history
The Supreme Court vacated the TRO 5-4 on April 7-8 but required advance written notice for AEA deportees to file habeas corpus petitions
On December 22, 2025, Boasberg ruled the U.S. had denied due process to the deported Venezuelans and ordered their return or due-process hearings by January 5, 2026
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
President
DHS Secretary
Maryland resident, wrongly deported
Supreme Court Justice
legal resource
File or support a habeas corpus petition for a detained person through federal district court
Habeas corpus is the foundational legal check on government detention. Understanding how to access it — and that family members can file on a detainee's behalf — makes this protection practical rather than abstract.
Habeas corpus — the right to challenge imprisonment in court — is the primary legal tool when the government imprisons someone without due process. It applies to noncitizens held in the U.S. and can be filed by attorneys or family members on a detainee's behalf through any federal district court. If you know someone who has been detained and believes their detention is unlawful, contact the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project at aclu.org. They can advise on whether a habeas petition is appropriate and connect you with local legal resources. You do not need to be a lawyer to request help on someone's behalf.
research
Understand the difference between civil and criminal contempt and how courts enforce their orders
The civil versus criminal contempt distinction determines how fast courts can respond to executive branch defiance and what leverage they have. Understanding it gives citizens a framework for evaluating whether courts are effectively checking executive power.
Criminal contempt of court requires proving willful disobedience of a specific court order beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil contempt requires only showing the order was violated and can be coerced with escalating daily fines until compliance. Track the Boasberg contempt proceedings at CourtListener.com under search terms 'Boasberg alien enemies.' Understanding the contempt distinction matters because it determines how quickly courts can respond to violations and what sanctions are available when the executive branch defies a court order.
research
Track Alien Enemies Act litigation at CourtListener to follow how courts define 'invasion' and 'war'
Courts are right now deciding what a 1798 law means when applied to modern circumstances. Tracking this litigation in real time is civic engagement at its most direct — these rulings affect real people's lives immediately.
The Alien Enemies Act (50 U.S.C. § 21) requires a declared war or an actual invasion — courts are still deciding whether a criminal gang qualifies under that standard. Track the litigation at CourtListener.com by searching 'Alien Enemies Act Boasberg' to follow each ruling. The legal question of what constitutes an 'invasion' under a 1798 statute being applied to 21st century migration and gang activity is being defined through active court proceedings. Reading the rulings as they come out gives citizens real-time access to how courts are resolving this question.