DOJ Challenges Contempt Charge in Mass Deportation Case

(EL SALVADOR) The U.S. 🇺🇸 Justice Department on Friday, December 12, 2025 asked a federal appeals court to block a contempt inquiry opened by U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg into the Trump administration’s March 2025 removal of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, pushing the legal fight over emergency deportation powers into a sharp new phase.

Immediate appellate intervention and stay

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted a temporary stay the same day in a 2-1 ruling, pausing Boasberg’s planned hearings and halting scheduled testimony from:

• former Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni (set to appear Monday), and
• Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign (set to testify Tuesday).

The stay means the district court cannot move forward, at least for now, with the fact-finding Boasberg said he needs to decide whether the government acted in bad faith and whether to refer the matter for possible prosecution.

Justice Department’s emergency motion and request to disqualify

In its emergency motion, the Justice Department also asked the D.C. Circuit to remove Boasberg from the case. The filing framed the judge’s renewed contempt efforts as a direct threat to the executive branch’s control over criminal contempt prosecutions and as an action that would pull the courts into the Justice Department’s internal decision-making.

The department called the inquiry a “fishing expedition” that risks violating:

• the separation of powers, and
• attorney-client privilege.

It also accused the Obama-nominated judge—who has served as the court’s chief since March 2023—of bias.

The March 2025 removals and the core dispute

At the center of the dispute is a burst of removals in March 2025, when President Trump’s administration used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

• On March 15, Boasberg issued a verbal order that was later followed by a written order, temporarily restraining the administration from using the law for 14 days.
• The Justice Department has argued that the verbal order was not reflected in the written version and has denied defying the court in bad faith.

Boasberg, however, has emphasized the need for testimony to clarify what happened around the March 15 hearing, and he has cited possible bad faith in reviving the contempt inquiry.

Why the contempt probe matters

A contempt finding can:

• increase pressure on the government to follow immigration-related court orders,
• influence how future emergency deportation powers are tested, and
• shape how courts treat the use of wartime-style authorities that are rarely used in modern immigration enforcement.

“Judges often insist they must be able to determine whether their orders were followed,” the dispute reflects a recurring clash: judges’ need to enforce orders versus the executive branch’s claim that sensitive enforcement choices and legal advice should be protected from compelled disclosure.

Justice Department’s argument to the appeals court

The department urged the appeals court to act before Monday’s hearing, warning that the “long-running saga” risked “unseemly interbranch conflict.” In essence, the Justice Department argued that the courts should not press executive-branch lawyers and officials to answer questions that, in the department’s view, belong inside the executive branch—particularly where prosecutors may later decide whether contempt charges are warranted.

Boasberg has maintained that a prior appeals court ruling authorizes his probe, at least insofar as he is assessing evidence for any referral for prosecution. That positions the case as another instance of the familiar tension in immigration cases between judicial enforcement and executive discretion.

Whistleblower-related allegations and paused testimony

The stay also paused potentially explosive testimony from Erez Reuveni, who has been linked in the court record to a whistleblower complaint. According to the materials cited in court:

• Reuveni’s complaint alleges a top Justice Department official suggested ignoring court orders.
• That allegation, not fully aired in open court, is one reason Boasberg said he needed sworn testimony: it bears on whether actions around the March deportations were accidental, legally disputed, or deliberate defiance of a judge’s restraint.

Human consequences and the statute at issue

While the filings focus on institutional power, the underlying event involved real people moved rapidly across borders. The migrants at issue were Venezuelans deported to El Salvador, and the court fight has unfolded with the consequence that a legal argument in Washington can determine whether removals continue, pause, or restart under an 18th-century statute.

• The Alien Enemies Act—enacted in 1798—has long sat at the edge of U.S. immigration authority.
• The government’s reliance on it in this case is a major reason the litigation has attracted intense attention.

Readers can review the statute’s official text through this link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/5th-congress/house-bill/53.

The move to disqualify a judge

The Justice Department’s bid to disqualify Boasberg adds another layer. Requests to remove a judge are not routine and often signal that a case has become deeply charged, legally and politically.

• The department tied its disqualification request to its claim that Boasberg’s contempt push improperly intrudes on executive prerogatives.
• Boasberg characterizes the inquiry as a necessary way to establish what happened at a fast-moving moment—what orders were given, how they were understood, and why the deportations proceeded as they did.

What the stay does — and does not — resolve

The appeals court’s temporary stay:

• pauses the district court’s next steps, and
• gives the D.C. Circuit time to decide key questions about Boasberg’s authority and the Justice Department’s privilege and separation-of-powers objections.

The stay does not resolve the core dispute: whether the district court can continue examining events following the March 15 order and whether the Justice Department can be compelled to put current or former officials under oath. That decision will affect how readily courts can enforce immigration-related injunctions when the government claims a separate constitutional role in prosecutorial discretion.

Stakes for migrants and families

For immigrants and their families, the procedural fight has direct consequences:

• Rapid removals under unusual legal tools can narrow opportunities to challenge a deportation or seek relief.
• People can become trapped while courts and appeals courts sort out the limits of judicial authority.

Analysis by VisaVerge.com notes that cases combining rare statutes, emergency orders, and fast removals often produce long-running uncertainty, as courts move in stops and starts while appeals courts weigh trial judges’ powers.

Current status and next steps

• For now, the government has gained breathing room with the stay, and Boasberg’s contempt inquiry is paused.
• The next move rests with the D.C. Circuit, which must decide:
  1. whether the district court can keep digging into the March 2025 deportations;
  2. whether the Justice Department’s objections about privilege and separation of powers prevail; and
  3. whether Boasberg remains on a case that has become a flashpoint over the Alien Enemies Act and judicial authority to police compliance with court orders.