A federal court battle is unfolding over the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to deport individuals it claims are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The law, which grants the president authority to expel immigrants from "hostile" nations during war or invasion, has not been invoked since 1941.

During a heated hearing on Monday, US District Judge James Boasberg pressed a Justice Department attorney on why the administration did not comply with his order to temporarily halt deportations and questioned why key details about flights over the weekend were being withheld. Boasberg described the administration’s stance as, “We don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”

Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli defended the administration’s actions, arguing it had followed Boasberg’s written order, which came hours after his oral ruling on Saturday. He asserted that the written directive took precedence, stating, “We believe that we’ve complied with the order.”

Dive deeper

Boasberg dismissed that reasoning, responding, “An order is an order" and criticized the government for disregarding his initial ruling. He also pushed for specifics on the deportation flights—such as how many there were and whether any were in the air—but Kambli refused to disclose details, citing national security concerns.

“I am only authorized to say what we have said” in court filings, Kambli stated. The filing in question argued that the case “cannot be used to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”

Frustrated by the lack of transparency, Boasberg ordered Kambli to provide answers by noon Tuesday and to submit an official explanation for why the information was withheld in court. “If the government takes the position that it will not provide that information to the Court under any circumstances, it must support such position, including with classified authorities if necessary,” he ruled. After the hearing, he issued a written order with those questions, adding that the government’s response may be “sealed in part, if necessary.” Another hearing is scheduled for Friday.

Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the plaintiffs alongside Democracy Forward, warned of the broader implications. “What changes here … is the government’s apparent refusal to abide by the federal court’s power. Our country is based on the assumption that there are three equal branches … Once that ends, we’re in a very different situation in this country; we’re no longer a country based on the rule of law,” he said.

Wider context

Shortly before the hearing, the Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court seeking to remove Boasberg from the case, arguing he had compromised national security by scrutinizing the administration’s deportation initiative. “The Government cannot—and will not—be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture,” the letter stated. It further argued that the judge’s inquiry posed “grave risks to the conduct of the Government in areas wholly unsuited to micromanagement supervision by a district court judge.”

The legal battle follows Boasberg’s emergency ruling on Saturday, which temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting individuals under the Alien Enemies Act.

During that hearing, he ordered a Justice Department lawyer to “immediately” inform officials that any planes carrying deportees must return to the United States. However, the government later acknowledged in a Sunday filing that “some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory” before the order was issued.

Boasberg emphasized Saturday that compliance was mandatory. “However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone … I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”

Hours before Monday’s hearing, the Justice Department attempted to have it vacated, arguing that questions about flight locations “implicate sensitive questions of national security, foreign relations, and coordination with foreign nations” that were “neither material nor appropriate.”

However, the judge proceeded, signaling an intensifying legal standoff over the administration’s use of emergency deportation powers.