Noem confirms she approved deportation flights despite court orders

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem confirmed on November 30, 2025 that she personally approved deportation flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March 2025, even after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the planes to turn back and return to the United States. Her admission has intensified a growing legal and political fight over whether senior officials openly defied a federal court and what that means for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.

Noem’s on‑the‑record comments and rationale

Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Noem was asked directly whether she made the call to continue the flights after Judge Boasberg’s order. She answered that:

“The decisions that are made on deportations, where flights go and when they go are my decision at the Department of Homeland Security and we will continue to do the right thing and ensure that dangerous criminals are removed.”

When pressed on whether that meant she had ignored the court, she dismissed Boasberg as an “activist judge” whose “radical decisions…have no standing and no grounds.”

Noem’s public defense is that she was acting lawfully and in the interest of public safety, and that these deportation decisions fall within her statutory and departmental authority.

Justice Department filing and legal basis cited

A Justice Department filing confirmed that Noem made the final decision to allow the men to be handed over in El Salvador, rather than brought back to the United States as Judge Boasberg had ordered.

Key legal elements cited in the filing:

• The migrants had been classified by the Trump administration as members of a transnational gang under war powers invoked by President Trump.
• The administration relied on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to permit rapid expulsions with minimal legal review.
• Senior political appointees believed the Alien Enemies Act gave the administration wide power to remove the men.
• The Justice Department argued that Judge Boasberg’s first, oral order did not carry binding legal effect, and that his later written order was issued only after the deportation flights had left U.S. airspace.

Officials involved and internal disagreement

The filing identifies senior officials who shaped the advice:

• Then–Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche
• Emil Bove, who was serving as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the time

According to the filing and reports:

• These senior Justice Department officials advised Noem that she could let the deportation flights continue.
• Other government lawyers, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, urged compliance with Judge Boasberg’s ruling.
• VisaVerge.com reports that internal splits like this are rare but can occur when emergency immigration actions collide with fast‑moving court challenges.

Judge Boasberg’s reaction and possible contempt proceedings

Judge James Boasberg, a U.S. District Judge in Washington, accused the government of showing “willful disregard” for his orders and suggested the episode may amount to criminal contempt.

• The men were removed to El Salvador but did not remain there permanently.
• They were confined in El Salvador for months, per the filing, before a negotiated prisoner exchange ultimately sent them on to Venezuela.

Boasberg maintains he can still pursue contempt proceedings because, in his view, the question of whether his order was ignored is separate from whether he had jurisdiction over the broader policy.

Human impact and civil‑rights concerns

For the deported men, the legal maneuvering in Washington translated into months of uncertainty in a third country that had not chosen to receive them as regular immigrants.

• Their lawyers argue that, had the judge’s order been followed, the men would have remained in U.S. custody while their emergency lawsuit moved forward.
• Instead, they were effectively out of the court’s reach almost immediately after the order was issued.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, who represents the deportees, said the government’s written explanation “raises more questions than it answers.” He highlighted that the filing shows senior career Justice Department lawyers advised compliance with Boasberg’s order, but their view was set aside in favor of political leadership advice.

Lawyers for the men are asking Boasberg to force testimony from nine current and former officials, including:

• Emil Bove (now a federal appeals court judge)
• Former Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni, who has claimed that Bove pressured colleagues to ignore any court ruling that blocked the deportations

Supreme Court involvement and limits on further deportations

The Supreme Court later intervened with a mixed outcome:

• The justices ruled that Judge Boasberg did not have jurisdiction to intervene in the emergency lawsuit filed in March.
• Simultaneously, they blocked any further deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, placing the wider policy on hold even while limiting Boasberg’s authority in that specific case.

Despite the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling, Boasberg contends contempt proceedings remain an available remedy for alleged disobedience of his orders.

Broader policy and constitutional issues

This episode raises several constitutional and policy questions:

• How far may cabinet officials go when they believe a judge has overstepped?
• What are the limits of executive authority in emergency immigration removals?
• Can rapid expulsions under statutes like the Alien Enemies Act effectively shut down judicial review?

The Alien Enemies Act, written in the late 18th century to allow government action against nationals of hostile countries in time of war, is an unusual tool when applied to modern immigration enforcement. Using it as a fast‑track for expulsions, with “minimal legal review,” heightens concerns that people may be removed without a fair chance to contest government claims about gang membership or national security.

For context on DHS’s role in deportations, see the Department of Homeland Security’s official site: Department of Homeland Security.

Political framing and consequences

Noem has framed Judge Boasberg as an “activist judge” issuing “radical decisions,” converting the legal dispute into a political battle that echoes longer fights over immigration enforcement under Presidents Trump and Biden.

• Supporters of broad executive power view her stance as a willingness to push back against perceived judicial overreach.
• Critics see it as potential open defiance of the rule of law when court orders clash with hard‑line deportation goals.

Possible next steps and stakes

If Boasberg moves ahead with contempt proceedings and seeks testimony from senior figures now serving as judges or in private practice, the case would become an unusually sharp test of accountability for decisions taken during an immigration emergency.

Key unresolved questions:

1. Will testimony from senior officials be compelled, and will it settle whether the judge’s order was intentionally ignored?
2. Will Noem’s defense—that she relied on Justice Department advice and acted to remove “dangerous criminals”—satisfy the court?
3. How will courts and policymakers constrain or endorse use of statutes like the Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations?

The dispute has already become a touchstone in debates over deportation flights, executive power, and the limits senior officials must respect when their actions clash with federal judges.

The case continues to be watched closely by immigration lawyers, policy specialists, and rights groups because its outcome could define how aggressively cabinet officials may act in the future when they believe a judge has overstepped.