BREAKING: Chief justice pushes back against calls to impeach judges who rule against Trump
Profile
Sections
Local
tv
Featured
More From NBC
Follow NBC News
news Alerts
There are no new alerts at this time
WASHINGTON — A federal judge pressed a Justice Department lawyer Monday over why the Trump administration did not comply with his order to temporarily halt deportations under an 18th century law and asked why key information about the flights over the weekend was being withheld.
In a tense hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg summarized the administration’s position on his court order Saturday as “we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.” Boasberg had directed any planes in the air carrying deportees to return to the United States.
The Justice Department attorney, Abhishek Kambli, said the administration had complied with the judge’s written order, which came hours after Boasberg’s oral ruling at an emergency hearing Saturday. Kambli argued the written ruling took precedence over the one issued from the bench, adding, “We believe that we’ve complied with the order.”
Boasberg said an order is an order.
“You’re saying that you felt that you could disregard it because it wasn’t a written order,” Boasberg said, calling the Justice Department’s argument “a stretch.”
Follow live politics coverage here
He asked Kambli numerous questions about the flights — including how many there were and how many were in the air at the time — and Kambli refused to provide any details, citing national security concerns.
“I am only authorized to say what we have said” in the court filings, Kambli said.
The filing in question said the plaintiffs “cannot use these proceedings to interfere with the President’s national-security and foreign-affairs authority, and the Court lacks jurisdiction to do so.”
Boasberg ordered Kambli to answer several questions about the flights by noon Tuesday and to give him an official explanation about why he was not able to disclose that information in court at Monday’s hearing and what forum he can answer those questions in.
“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.
Boasberg said he would issue a written order with those questions after the hearing, “since apparently my oral orders don’t appear to carry much weight.”
He issued that order shortly after the hearing and said the response may, “if necessary, be sealed in part.”
Boasberg scheduled another hearing for Friday.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, which alongside Democracy Forward is helping represent the plaintiffs, said after the hearing that “there are decisions that are made all the time that people disagree with and are extremely polarizing, but that has happened for 200 years-plus in our country.”
“What changes here, what the difference is 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 and that the federal court will say what the law is and that the other two branches will adhere to those rulings. 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,” Gelernt said.
Just before the hearing, the Justice Department sent a letter to a federal appeals court seeking to remove Boasberg from the case, arguing he endangered national security by having an inquiry about the initiative the administration announced Saturday.
“The Government cannot—and will not—be forced to answer sensitive questions of national security and foreign relations in a rushed posture without orderly briefing and a showing that these questions are somehow material to a live issue. Answering them, especially on the proposed timetable, is flagrantly improper and presents grave risks to the conduct of the Government in areas wholly unsuited to micromanagement supervision by a district court judge,” the letter said.
The court fight centers on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law, to deport people who it claims are part of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The 18th century law gives the president the ability to quickly deport immigrants from “hostile” nations during war or when a foreign government perpetuates an “invasion.” It hasn’t been invoked since 1941.
Boasberg scheduled the hearing to determine the timeline of events since his order Saturday evening temporarily blocking President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Tren de Aragua members.
On Saturday, he told a Justice Department lawyer to “immediately” inform his clients that any planes involved in deportations — and the people inside them who were subject to his order — needed to be returned to the United States. However, the government reported in a filing Sunday that “some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory” before Boasberg’s order was issued.
“However that’s accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you,” Boasberg had said Saturday. “But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”
The Justice Department had sought to vacate the hearing Monday in the hours before it occurred, that the questions about planes’ locations “implicate sensitive questions of national security, foreign relations, and coordination with foreign nations” that were “neither material nor appropriate.”
Ryan J. Reilly is a justice reporter for NBC News.
Chloe Atkins reports for the NBC News Investigative Unit, based in New York. She frequently covers crime and courts.
Dareh Gregorian is a politics reporter for NBC News.
© 2025 NBCUniversal Media, LLC
