This is suspicious.
The legal war between President Donald Trump’s administration and the federal judiciary is heating up again—this time with a dramatic appeal aimed squarely at a Biden-appointed judge in Washington.
On Friday, lawyers for the Trump administration asked a federal appeals court to immediately step in and block a revived contempt investigation ordered by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. The dispute centers on the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants earlier this year.
According to the filing, administration lawyers argue the judge’s actions cross a constitutional line and threaten the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch.
Trump Lawyers Seek Emergency Intervention
In a rare legal move known as a writ of mandamus, Justice Department attorneys urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to shut down the contempt inquiry entirely. If that request is denied, they asked the court to at least stop two Justice Department officials from being forced to testify next week.
The administration described the investigation as an overreach, calling it a legally flawed effort that falls outside the district court’s authority.
“This inquiry never should have begun,” government lawyers argued, warning it risks turning the courts into a political battleground.
Claims of Judicial Overreach
Trump’s legal team went further, asking the appeals court to remove Judge Boasberg from the case altogether. The filing accuses the judge of engaging in retaliation and harassment against the administration.
Lawyers warned that compelling testimony from executive branch officials could undermine attorney-client privilege and fuel an unnecessary confrontation between branches of government.
At the heart of the dispute is the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century wartime law the Trump administration used in March to swiftly deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
Background on the Deportation Dispute
Judge Boasberg had previously issued a temporary order attempting to pause the deportations for 14 days. Despite that order, flights continued—prompting the judge to reopen the case and consider whether senior officials willfully ignored the court.
The administration strongly denies any wrongdoing, arguing that criminal contempt matters fall under executive authority—not judicial control.
“Criminal contempt is a criminal offense,” DOJ lawyers wrote, emphasizing that investigations and prosecutions are core executive responsibilities.
Ordered Testimony Raises Alarms
Earlier this week, Judge Boasberg ordered testimony from Drew Ensign, a senior Justice Department official, as well as former DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni, who has since publicly criticized the administration.
The judge said the testimony is necessary to understand decisions surrounding the March deportation flights. Trump administration lawyers counter that such questioning risks exposing privileged legal advice and politicizing the courts.
Court filings also revealed that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem authorized the transfers after receiving legal guidance from Justice Department and DHS lawyers.
Noem confirmed in a sworn declaration that she relied on that advice when making the decision.
Political Fallout Likely
Judge Boasberg has so far declined to compel testimony from Noem, calling it premature. He has also said it would be too early to refer anyone for prosecution.
Still, the revived contempt inquiry is expected to spark outrage among congressional Republicans and supporters of President Trump. Trump himself has repeatedly blasted Boasberg as an “activist judge” interfering with immigration enforcement and executive authority.
Boasberg, however, appears unmoved by the criticism.
“This matter has been pending for a long time,” he said recently. “And justice requires that I move forward.”
What Happens Next
It remains unclear how quickly—or aggressively—the appeals court will act. But one thing is certain: the clash over immigration enforcement, presidential authority, and judicial power is far from over.
As the legal fight escalates, the outcome could have major implications not only for border security, but for the constitutional balance between America’s branches of government.
