Washington, D.C. – A federal judge has ordered a 14-day halt to deportation flights carrying alleged gang members to El Salvador following accusations of violating a court order. The Trump administration faced potential contempt of court for defying the judge’s directive to stop the deportations.

Judge James Boasberg criticized the administration for invoking a centuries-old law to conduct mass deportations, stating that they had ample opportunity to rectify their actions but failed to do so satisfactorily. The White House responded by expressing intentions to challenge the decision through immediate appellate relief.

This clash between the judiciary and the White House highlights a power struggle over the president’s authority. Despite a Supreme Court ruling allowing the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act for deportations, Judge Boasberg emphasized that the government’s actions still violated the court order.

Boasberg’s decision signals the potential for contempt proceedings if the administration fails to provide a satisfactory explanation by the specified deadline. This could lead to identifying individuals responsible for ignoring the deportation stop order and recommending prosecutions.

The deportation flights, which included over 200 alleged gang members sent to El Salvador, sparked controversy and led to a temporary restraining order. Despite the judge’s directive to turn the flights around, they continued to their destination, prompting further scrutiny from the court.

In response to allegations of defiance, President Trump criticized Judge Boasberg on social media, escalating tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary. El Salvador’s agreement to accept deportees in exchange for financial compensation further complicates the situation, as discussions of additional deportation flights to the country loom.

The ongoing legal battle raises questions about the balance of power between branches of government and the implications of using wartime laws for deportation purposes. As the deadline for compliance approaches, the outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for immigration policy and judicial oversight.