Trump Admin Slams Ruling Trying To Reverse Deportation

Man in suit surrounded by supportive crowd holding signs

The Trump administration is fighting back against a federal judge’s unprecedented order to return a deported MS-13 gang member to the United States, calling it a severe overreach of judicial authority that threatens national security interests.

Quick Takes

The Justice Department filed an emergency stay against Judge Paula Xinis’s order to return MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the US after his deportation
The administration argues that ordering the return of deported individuals exceeds judicial authority and is comparable to demanding military interventions abroad
The legal battle is part of a broader conflict over Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations of alleged gang members
District Judge Jeb Boasberg is investigating whether the administration defied his order to halt deportation flights to El Salvador
President Trump has called for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment, which Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts condemned as “not an appropriate response”

Justice Department Challenges Judge’s Authority to Reverse Deportation

The Trump administration has escalated its legal battle with the federal judiciary by filing an emergency stay against an order by Judge Paula Xinis that would require the government to bring deported MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to American soil. The Justice Department’s filing strongly criticizes the judge’s demand, emphasizing that such an order exceeds judicial authority and undermines executive branch powers over immigration enforcement. The administration’s legal team compared the judge’s order to demanding military interventions or hostage negotiations in foreign countries.

“We suggest the Judge contact [El Salvador’s] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador,” said White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt.

The Justice Department has emphasized the public interest in preventing violent gang members from returning to the United States, reinforcing President Trump’s campaign promise to prioritize national security through aggressive immigration enforcement. This case represents a significant test of the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches, with the administration arguing that immigration enforcement decisions fall squarely within executive authority, particularly when national security concerns are involved.

Broader Conflict Over Deportation Authority

The dispute over the MS-13 member’s deportation is just one front in a larger legal battle surrounding the Trump administration’s immigration policies. U.S. District Judge Jeb Boasberg has ordered the administration to explain its apparent non-compliance with a court order regarding deportation flights to El Salvador, particularly those carrying Venezuelan immigrants alleged to be gang members. The administration has invoked the rarely-used Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law last implemented during World War II, to justify the deportations.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Boasberg’s March 15 order blocking these deportations. However, El Salvador’s president announced that deportees had already arrived in the country before the judge’s order took effect. The administration claims some planes took off before the order was issued, while a third plane did not include deportees under the specific law in question. Judge Boasberg has demanded detailed information about the flights, including takeoff times, landing times, and the number of deportees.

A legal showdown between Judge Boasberg and the Trump administration has escalated after the deportation of more than 200 Venezuelans, including alleged gang members, despite a court order. @MacFarlaneNews reports on the high-stakes fight over executive power and the rule of law. pic.twitter.com/iCRRYXLydE

— CBS Evening News (@CBSEveningNews) March 21, 2025

Executive Branch Pushes Back on Judicial “Fishing”

The Justice Department has characterized Judge Boasberg’s demands for information as “unnecessary judicial fishing” that encroaches on executive authority. Officials claim that answering the judge’s questions would compromise sensitive information related to national security and foreign policy. The administration further argues that only the judge’s written order needed to be followed, not verbal directions issued during court proceedings, and has cited “state secrets privilege” to withhold certain information from the court.

“grave encroachments on core aspects of absolute and unreviewable Executive Branch authority relating to national security, foreign relations, and foreign policy,” according to the Justice Department.

Boasberg has ordered a sworn declaration from someone involved in Cabinet-level discussions about the state secrets privilege and has set deadlines for the administration to make a formal decision on invoking this privilege. The conflict has intensified political tensions, with President Trump and his allies calling for Boasberg’s impeachment. Chief Justice John Roberts responded by stating that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” further highlighting the institutional tensions at play in this high-stakes legal battle.

Constitutional Questions About Immigration Authority

The legal conflict raises fundamental questions about the extent of judicial review over executive immigration actions. The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of five Venezuelan noncitizens detained in Texas, arguing that the Alien Enemies Act cannot be used to bypass normal deportation procedures. While the Act allows deportations without hearings, Judge Boasberg ruled that immigrants must have the opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members before deportation can proceed.

“until weighty and unprecedented legal issues can be addressed,” said Judge Patricia Millett.

The conflict exemplifies the tension between the Trump administration’s aggressive stance on immigration enforcement and the judiciary’s role in ensuring constitutional rights are protected. While Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson noted that the court’s ruling does not prevent arrests and detentions under Trump’s proclamation, the administration continues to assert that immigration enforcement decisions, particularly those involving national security, should remain largely within executive discretion with minimal judicial interference.