Federal Judge Finds Trump in Contempt for Deportation Violations as Public Supports Due Process for Immigrants
Court says Trump administration defied judicial order by deporting migrants to El Salvador; 90% have no criminal record, as public support for due process outpaces White House policies.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A federal judge has found probable cause that the Trump administration acted in criminal contempt of court after it deported over 200 Venezuelan immigrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador in direct defiance of a court order prohibiting their removal. The decision comes amid the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown on immigrants and growing public concern about the denial of due process and the administration's repeated violations of court orders.
In a ruling issued on April 16, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote that the government showed a “willful disregard” for a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued on March 15 that was meant to halt deportations under a controversial presidential proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Despite the court’s order, two ICE-chartered planes carrying dozens of migrants — many of whom had pending asylum claims — were flown to El Salvador and turned over to local authorities.
“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 wrote. “To permit such officials to freely 'annul the judgments of the courts of the United States' would not just 'destroy the rights acquired under those judgments'; it would make 'a solemn mockery' of 'the constitution itself.'”
The deportations were authorized by an executive order targeting alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. However, the administration has refused to provide evidence that those deported were involved in criminal activity, citing “state secrets privilege.”
Reporting has since found that 90% of the people sent to El Salvador’s Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT) under this policy have no criminal records.
One deportee, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, was removed from the U.S. due to what officials later admitted was an “administrative error.” Despite the United States Supreme Court ruling 9-0 that the Trump administration must “facilitate” his return, the administration has refused to bring him back.
Earlier this week, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele traveled to Washington, D.C., to meet President Trump at the White House. During a joint press conference, Trump and Bukele were asked whether they would comply with the court order to return Garcia to the United States. Each replied that they had no authority to return him and would not do so. Both leaders doubled down on the claim that Garcia is a gang member — a claim for which neither the Trump administration nor the government of El Salvador has provided any evidence in court.
In an even more concerning move, the Trump administration has begun discussing the potential for US citizens with criminal records to be sent to CECOT. “The homegrowns are next,” Trump told Bukele at the White House.
Previous reporting has revealed that the Trump administration is paying the government of El Salvador at least $6 million to imprison migrants sent to CECOT for one year. Immigration advocates have called the prison arrangement an offshoring of U.S. immigration enforcement to bypass judicial oversight and place vulnerable individuals into a facility widely criticized for inhumane conditions.
Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, who represents the district where Garcia was apprehended, traveled to El Salvador on April 16 in an attempt to meet with government officials to discuss returning Garcia to the U.S. Van Hollen said that his requests to meet with Garcia were denied. He added that when he asked the Vice President of El Salvador why Garcia continues to be held at CECOT even though he’s not charged with a crime and there’s no evidence that he’s MS-13, Van Hollen said, “His answer was that the Trump administration is paying the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT.”
In an interview with CNN before leaving for El Salvador, Van Hollen said, “I think that the situation for both Trump and the president of El Salvador is unsustainable. SCOTUS ruled 9-0 that the administration has to facilitate his return, and you have the president of El Salvador saying, 'Well, I don't have the power to release him.' Both things are untrue."
The case has drawn national attention not only for the legal implications but for what it reveals about the broader erosion of due process protections under the administration’s immigration policy. On March 8, just days before the deportations, immigration officials detained Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, following his participation in pro-Palestinian protests. Since then, a judge has ruled that Khalil can be deported, not for committing a crime (which he has not done), but for posing as a threat to US foreign policy. More than 1,300 international students have had their visas revoked since Trump's inauguration, often without formal charges or public explanation.
New polling from Data for Progress shows that the Trump administration’s approach to immigration is out of step with public opinion. According to the survey, 81% of voters — including large majorities across party lines — believe that immigrants with green cards or visas should have the right to be informed of the charges against them, while 77% support their right to a fair trial, 75% to present a defense, and 69% to appeal a decision.
Even when asked about undocumented immigrants, a majority of voters — 57% overall, including 83% of Democrats and 59% of independents — said the government should only be allowed to deport someone if it has provided evidence and a hearing. Just 39% said deportations should be allowed without either.
These findings reinforce earlier polling trends showing that while some voters express general support for “mass deportations,” they tend to oppose the real-world application of those policies — especially when due process is denied or when legal residents are caught in the dragnet.
While a majority of Americans support deporting undocumented immigrants who have committed violent crimes, most of Trump’s immigration policies face strong public opposition.
Polling conducted between Jan. 9 and Feb. 28, 2025, found that 81% of respondents support deporting undocumented immigrants accused of violent crimes. Even the proposal to declare a national emergency at the border and initiate mass deportations received only modest support, with a net of +11.
Net support was negative for nearly every other immigration policy tested.
Deporting undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for over 10 years received a net opposition of 37 percentage points, while deporting undocumented parents of U.S. citizen children was opposed by 36 points. Voters also rejected deporting immigrants who have not committed crimes beyond immigration violations (-18) and those with jobs and no criminal record (-14).
Policies such as using Guantanamo Bay to detain migrants (-4), deploying the U.S. military to carry out deportations (-3), and holding immigrants in large detention centers (-4) were similarly unpopular.
In the contempt ruling, Judge Boasberg noted that even though the Supreme Court later vacated the TRO on procedural grounds, the government was still obligated to comply while it remained in effect. He wrote that the administration’s effort to sidestep judicial oversight — by continuing deportations after the order was issued and refusing to disclose key details — appeared not only intentional but unlawful.
The opinion concluded that the administration’s actions “manifest a willful disregard of the Court’s legally binding proscriptions,” paving the way for potential criminal charges or further sanctions. The court’s findings deepen an ongoing legal and political crisis over the administration’s deportation agenda, which critics say increasingly operates outside the boundaries of constitutional protections.