Judge James Boasberg, who recently ruled that the Trump administration demonstrated “willful disregard” for his order to halt deportation flights, is the first judge to find probable cause for criminal contempt against administration officials. The legal battle over whether federal officials disobeyed Boasberg’s orders is part of a broader pattern of defiance and antagonism towards judges who have challenged President Donald Trump’s policies. Trump’s own tone has set the stage for his administration’s confrontational approach towards judicial authority.
Government officials have launched personal attacks against Judge Boasberg and others on social media and in public appearances. They have also claimed ignorance when questioned about the facts of legal disputes. In response to court rulings that have paused Trump’s initiatives, the administration has shown a remarkable disdain for judicial authority in guiding agencies on how to comply with court orders.
Retired Judge John Jones III, a George W. Bush appointee, described the administration’s behavior as audacious and lacking decorum, unlike anything he has seen from the Justice Department or federal court practitioners. The administration’s nonchalant attitude was highlighted in a case involving the mistaken deportation of a migrant to El Salvador, which escalated after the Supreme Court upheld a district judge’s order for the migrant’s return to the US.
During a hearing before US District Judge Paula Xinis, a DOJ attorney challenged the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s instructions, leading to a dispute over the term “facilitate.” Despite Xinis’s clear order, the department appealed, arguing against the broad definition of “facilitate.”
Top Trump officials have portrayed the Supreme Court as being on their side regardless of lower court decisions. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller inaccurately claimed a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling in their favor, while the actual opinion was more nuanced. The administration’s strategy appears to be distancing itself from lower courts and emphasizing compliance only with Supreme Court rulings.
Judge Jones criticized the administration’s attempt to undermine the authority of lower courts and isolate the Supreme Court from the rest of the judiciary. This approach reflects a broader trend of challenging judicial power during the Trump presidency.
The judges have been targeted in social media attacks by officials in the second administration, raising concerns about their safety. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller labeled Xinis as a “Marxist” and Attorney General Pam Bondi accused Boasberg of siding with terrorists over American citizens. Trump even suggested that Boasberg should be impeached. This disrespectful language has also made its way into formal statements from the administration. For instance, a memo written by Bondi criticized a court decision as an intrusion on executive branch prerogatives. Additionally, US Citizenship and Immigration Services revised a notice on its website following a court ruling on a Trump immigration policy, with the updated notice taking swipes at the judge’s decision.
Legal experts like Samuel Bagenstos, who has worked in various federal agencies, find the administration’s tone unprecedented in their experience. Bagenstos emphasized the importance of complying with court decisions even if there were disagreements with them. In court proceedings, the Trump Justice Department has been notably uncooperative in providing necessary information to judges. For example, US District Judge Ellen Hollander raised concerns about discrepancies in documents submitted by the Department of Government Efficiency and called for the agency’s acting commissioner to clarify the situation. Despite the judge’s request, the department informed her that the commissioner would not be attending the hearing.
During a recent hearing, Hollander expressed frustration at not having Dudek available to answer her questions, which was impeding her understanding of important details related to the legal dispute. In a previous stage of the case involving a wrongly deported migrant, a DOJ attorney openly shared the challenges he faced in obtaining necessary information from government officials. Despite his efforts, he did not receive satisfactory answers, leading to his subsequent dismissal for not sufficiently representing the United States’ interests.
Ensign, a new representative in the case, has been more guarded in his responses to the judge’s inquiries, even claiming inability to provide information on the migrant’s current whereabouts. The administration has yet to address the judge’s questions directly, opting instead to cite comments made by various officials. Xinis dismissed this attempt and ordered an intensive discovery process to uncover the government’s lack of action.
Former Justice Department official Peter Keisler criticized the administration for obstructing judges’ requests for information, making it challenging for them to enforce compliance. Despite calls for impeaching judges who ruled against Trump, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that the normal appellate process was the appropriate response to judicial disagreements.
The Supreme Court majority has avoided directly addressing the administration’s behavior in lower courts, leading to growing tensions and confusion in legal circles. Jones, a former judge, believes that the Supreme Court must intervene to protect lower court judges and maintain respect for the judicial system.
Sign up for a CNN.com account to access news and receive newsletters.
