Trump Officials Intensify Confrontations with Judges

After the hearing on Monday before Boasberg, Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, remarked that courts frequently make challenging and divisive decisions.

“What stands out in this situation is the government’s clear unwillingness to respect the authority of federal courts,” he stated. “Our nation operates on the premise that there are three equal branches of government, with federal courts defining the law, and that the other branches will abide by those rulings. If that principle is disregarded, we find ourselves in a very different scenario; we cease to be a nation governed by the rule of law.”

Contentious legal battles surrounding immigration have underscored Trump’s obstinacy in adhering to established laws and norms. This presents a politically advantageous situation for him, as polls indicate a significant portion of the American populace supports his pledges to halt illegal border crossings and deport millions of individuals currently in the country unlawfully. A recent NBC News poll reveals that 55% of registered voters endorse Trump’s approach to border security and immigration, while 43% express disapproval. This was his most favorable issue among five evaluated in the poll.

Moreover, his aides seem unconcerned about judicial opinions as they strive toward these aims.

“We’re not backing down,” said White House border czar Tom Homan on “Fox and Friends” Monday morning. “I’m not troubled by what the judges think.”

Despite hostile rhetoric toward judges and open defiance of certain rulings, the administration has taken measures to follow the appeals process, suggesting efforts to uphold some degree of respect for legal protocols. When the administration has lost cases—like those concerning payments owed to USAID contractors or the successful campaign to dismiss a federal employee watchdog—it has promptly turned to appellate courts and then the Supreme Court.

However, regarding the deportations that occurred over the weekend, Samuel Bray, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame, believes that Trump’s administration acted in contempt of Boasberg’s order.

“If a court issues an order and possesses jurisdiction, and the party receiving the order has been notified and understands its implications, then disobeying it is contempt,” he explained.

“The administration’s justifications about being outside U.S. territory and the order being verbal rather than written lack sound legal merit. They resemble attempts to influence the referees as these cases progress through the appeals process,” Bray added, referencing the nine Supreme Court justices as the referees in this context.

Four Democratic senators criticized Trump in a statement on Monday for invoking the Alien Enemies Act, originally established to prevent a hostile takeover of the nation. The law explicitly permits the president to initiate the deportation of noncitizens during “a declared war” or in the event of invasion by “any foreign nation or government.”

“To be clear: we are not at war, and immigrants are not invading our nation,” wrote Sens. Alex Padilla of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Dick Durbin of Illinois, and Peter Welch of Vermont.

“Moreover, it is the courts that determine if laws have been violated—not a president acting unilaterally, nor immigration officials selectively deciding who is to be imprisoned or deported,” the letter emphasized. “This is mandated by our Constitution, and it is the law that Trump must adhere to, regardless of any misleading claims he makes to the American people.”

Despite their statements, the Democratic senators lack the authority to compel Trump to comply with judicial orders. In certain instances, the administration is yielding to the courts—at least temporarily. Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the administration could not deport Khalil, the pro-Palestinian activist from Columbia University, summarily.

U.S. officials detained Khalil in New York and transferred him to Louisiana, where they anticipate his case will be adjudicated. The chosen venue may prove crucial in determining whether he is deported or permitted to stay in the country.

The administration has persistently faced accusations of disregarding court orders while sometimes failing to acknowledge its noncompliance.

The first incident occurred on February 10, when a federal judge in Rhode Island condemned the government for violating his ruling to halt a broad freeze on federal funding.

“In certain instances, defendants have continued to improperly freeze federal funds and have refused to lift the disbursement of appropriated federal funds,” wrote U.S. District Judge McConnell, highlighting that his order to lift the freeze had been “clear and unambiguous.”

Another judge managing a case that required the government to unfreeze funding for USAID grants had to issue three orders before the government began to comply. During this period, the government contended it was allowed to review the grants.

In a different case, nonprofit organizations charged the administration with circumventing a court order on the suspension of grants related to refugee admissions simply by ending the grants.

Impeaching Judges

Trump’s supporters, both within and outside his administration, have frequently lambasted judges who have ruled against him, sometimes calling for their removal—this includes Justice Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump appointed to the Supreme Court during his first term.

“I don’t say this lightly,” Mike Davis, a lawyer and Trump ally, proclaimed on X on Monday. “But the time has come: Tell Congress to impeach DC Judge Jeb Boasberg for keeping terrorists in America.”

Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, announced on Saturday his intent to file articles of impeachment against Boasberg.

Other Trump advisors shared similar sentiments, suggesting that much of the controversy and resistance regarding Trump’s overreach is far from over. Presently, there seem to be few checks on Trump’s tendency to bypass court orders, and both criticisms directed at specific judges and instances of ignoring court directives are likely to become a recurring element of his political and policy agenda.

“If activist judges obstruct the mandate we were given, then I see no reason why it should stop,” remarked a Trump adviser who preferred to remain anonymous to speak candidly. “We consider this a new era. We are getting the country back on track.”