Daijiworld Media Network- New York

New York, Apr 17: The Trump administration has found itself at odds with the judiciary over its controversial program to deport illegal migrants to El Salvador, many of whom are allegedly members of criminal gangs now classified as foreign terrorist organizations.

On Wednesday, a federal judge threatened to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the administration for failing to comply with an order to return a plane carrying Venezuelan migrants to the U.S., who were being deported to a high-security detention facility in El Salvador. This follows a similar threat from another federal judge the previous day, who warned the Justice Department of contempt action for not adhering to court orders regarding a Salvadoran migrant who was erroneously deported to El Salvador.

These threats from judges in two separate cases have raised questions about the limits of executive power, particularly when it comes to the administration’s deportation actions, testing the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

Despite the court’s stern warnings, Trump and his administration officials have largely dismissed the judiciary's threats. Judge James Boasberg, who is presiding over one of the cases, stated that there was probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for its failure to return migrants en route to El Salvador, allowing them an opportunity to challenge their deportation in a U.S. court.

The Justice Department, however, argued that once the planes were airborne, they were outside of the court’s jurisdiction and could not be turned back. "The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it," Boasberg said.

The administration, invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, has argued that 238 Venezuelan migrants were members of the criminal gang Tren de Aragua, which is involved in transnational crime and has now been designated as a foreign terrorist organization. According to the administration, it is authorized to take action against these individuals under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg stated that while the government would not be required to return the migrants, it must at least give them the opportunity to challenge their deportation in court.

If the government refuses, Boasberg has indicated that he would require officials to testify under oath to identify those who disregarded his order and, potentially, face prosecution for contempt. The Justice Department would be responsible for prosecuting such charges, but Boasberg suggested that if the DOJ declines, he would appoint an independent prosecutor to handle the case.

The Trump administration has vowed to challenge Boasberg’s ruling and may appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In a previous case involving the Alien Enemies Act, the Supreme Court had ruled in the administration’s favor, striking down a temporary order by Boasberg that had halted deportations but upheld the right of individuals facing deportation to challenge their cases in court.

In another related case, Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to bring back a Salvadoran migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported despite a court order to prevent his removal due to the risk of violence in El Salvador. The government, however, maintains that although the deportation was a mistake, Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang and should remain in El Salvador.

Attorney General Pam Bondi remarked that Garcia would not be returning to the U.S., as El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele would not release him from the notorious Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT) prison. Xinis had ordered the Justice Department to provide regular updates on the case, but her frustrations with the administration's responses led her to issue orders for government officials to testify under oath.

The administration’s legal challenges and the looming threat of contempt proceedings may ultimately set the stage for a significant constitutional clash between the executive branch and the judiciary. The Supreme Court, which may have the final say, could potentially play a decisive role in determining the outcome of these contentious legal battles.

Trump has already referred to Judge Boasberg as a “radical left lunatic,” and a group of Republican members of the House of Representatives have introduced a resolution to impeach him, further intensifying the political and legal standoff.