The Justice Department submitted a declaration on Tuesday revealing that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem played a central role in the Trump administration’s decision to deport over 200 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, despite an emergency court order issued by Judge James Boasberg. This new information has injected fresh tension into a contentious legal and political struggle over immigration policies, as Noem’s involvement was previously undisclosed. The filing, which was disclosed publicly for the first time, outlines how Noem directed the transfer of the migrants to El Salvador after receiving legal advice from senior Justice Department officials Todd Blanche and Emil Bove following the court’s order to halt the deportations. The decision to proceed with the transfer of the detainees, who had already been removed from the United States, has sparked debate about whether the action was in line with the court’s intent and whether it constitutes a willful violation of the judge’s order.
The emergency court order, issued by Boasberg on March 15, sought to block the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, a measure that the Trump administration had initially planned to implement. However, the deportations proceeded, and the migrants arrived in El Salvador hours after the order was issued. Boasberg has since indicated that he plans to move swiftly on the contempt inquiry, and has ordered the parties to submit proposed witness lists and deadlines for the next steps in the proceedings. This has prompted the class of deported Venezuelan migrants to request testimony from nine senior Trump officials, including former DOJ officials Emil Bove and Erez Reuveni, who are alleged to have been involved in the decision-making process. Bove, who has since been confirmed as a U.S. Circuit Court judge, has denied allegations that he encouraged the administration to ignore court orders blocking the deportation flights. The Justice Department, in its filing, defended that Noem’s actions were lawful and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the court order, and argued that the government’s actions did not violate the judge’s order in a way that would constitute criminal contempt.
The legal battle has drawn significant political attention, as the Trump administration and its allies have expressed their frustration with the ongoing contempt inquiry and Boasberg’s role in it. The administration has repeatedly criticized Boasberg as an ‘activist judge’ for his involvement in the case and for allowing certain subpoena requests from the special counsel Jack Smith during his investigation. The Justice Department has also raised concerns about Boasberg’s participation in a closed-door conference of judges, which prompted a complaint from the Trump administration to the superior court judge. These tensions are likely to continue as the case moves toward further proceedings, with the possibility of live witness testimony by the first week of December. Meanwhile, the administration has made it clear it intends to resist any efforts to compel testimony from its senior officials, and has warned that such attempts could lead to fierce legal objections. As the issue continues to divide political and legal circles, the case is expected to remain a focal point of debate over immigration enforcement and executive power.