Madrid, Spain.- A federal judge in the United States began a process on Wednesday to declare in contempt of the President’s government Donald Trump, considering that he deliberately disobeyed a court order that prohibited the expulsion of more than 200 migrants.
The majority of those affected are Venezuelans who were deported to El Salvador and held in the Center for Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT), a megacárcel built by the government of Nayib Bukele to house gang members and others accused of serious crimes.
Judge James Boasberg, of the Federal Court of the Columbia district, concluded that there are sufficient elements to maintain that the Trump administration intentionally violated an order issued on March 15.
“The Constitution does not tolerate the intentional disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials who have sworn to respect it,” said the judge.
The judicial resolution ordered to immediately stop the programmed deportation flights and reverse those already initiated under the protection of the Law of Foreign Enemies of 1798, a regulation with more than two centuries of ancient times, rarely invoked in the recent history of the country.
Despite this, the Government continued with the massive expulsion of migrants, whom he had accused of being part of the Criminal Train of Aragua without being demonstrated his individual implication. Boasberg expressed in his letter that allowing the Executive to ignore the court’s mandate “would make the Constitution itself a solemn mockery.”
According to the American pressthe judge has given a term until April 23 for the Executive to identify those responsible for the execution of deportations and show evidence of their efforts to comply with the court order.
Use of a law of 1798 and tensions with the Judiciary
The expulsion measure was justified by the White House through the Law of Foreign Enemies, approved in 1798 during the mandate of John Adams. It is a law designed for war contexts, which allows citizens of countries considered hostile. In this case, however, she was used to justify the forced exit of migrants without due process, which has generated criticism of jurists and human rights defenders.
Although The Supreme Court recently lifted a general ban on these expulsions, He also indicated that migrants must be able to challenge their deportation in state courts. The Trump administration, however, did not expect any resolution and proceeded with mass flights, ignoring the orders of federal judges.
The president reacted through his social Truth network, where he defended the legality of his immigration policies and criticized what he described as an “unjustified judicial interference.” For its part, the White House confirmed that it will appeal Boasberg’s decision.
In parallel, other federal judges have expressed their discomfort for the attitude of the government. Among them, Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the repatriation of Kilmar Abrego, A Salvadoran deported by mistake despite having his pending case in court. Ábrego remains detained in the CECOT, and the US authorities have avoided initiating efforts for their return, claiming that it would depend on a formal application of El Salvador.
The open contempt process against the Trump executive underlines the growing tensions between the federal government and the Judiciary around immigration policy. It also highlights the use of exceptional legal tools without basic legal guarantees, in a context of hardening border control. If Judge Boasberg concludes that there was contempt, criminal actions could be initiated against senior officials of the current administration.
