The Justice Department disclosed that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem approved transferring more than 200 Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador after a judge issued an emergency order, a revelation that intensifies a fast-moving contempt inquiry and sharpens the political fight over use of the Alien Enemies Act and judicial interference in immigration enforcement.
The newly filed declaration says senior Justice Department officials told DHS about the court’s emergency order and relayed an oral instruction that flights be returned, but that Secretary Noem authorized turning the migrants over to Salvadoran custody after they had already left. Republicans see this as a lawful choice under a narrow reading of the judge’s order and as an example of the administration following legal advice under pressure. The disclosure has opened the door to demands for witness testimony and a possible showdown over who made what call that night.
Two senior Justice Department officials, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove, are described in the filing as having provided legal advice to DHS the evening the flights had already departed. Plaintiffs argue that Boasberg’s March 15 emergency order, intended to halt the use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act, should have stopped the flights immediately. The government insists its actions were defensible and tied to the timing and scope of the court’s orders.
“After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the AEA detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador,” the Justice Department said. “That decision was lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order,” they added. Those exact words frame the administration’s defense and are central to any argument over intent or willful defiance.
The filing also asserts that Boasberg’s oral command that all flights be “immediately” returned to U.S. soil was nonbinding, a point the government will push hard in resisting contempt charges. “Accordingly, the government maintains that its actions did not violate the Court’s order — certainly not with the clarity required for criminal contempt — and no further proceedings are warranted or appropriate,” they wrote. From the Republican vantage point, the dispute highlights a bigger problem: judges second-guessing urgent operational choices.
Plaintiffs are pressing for testimony from nine senior officials they believe were involved, including Emil Bove, now a federal appellate judge, and Erez Reuveni, who has alleged certain internal conversations about ignoring court orders. Those requests are likely to be met with fierce objections from the administration, which argues judicial intrusion into executive decisions on national security and removals sets a dangerous precedent. Republicans in Congress are already angered by what they call judicial overreach in related matters.
Judge James Boasberg has said he will move quickly and has ordered the parties to submit proposed witness lists and deadlines, signaling urgency in the contempt inquiry. “I intend to proceed just like I did in April, seven months ago,” Boasberg said Wednesday. He also emphasized that “This has been sitting for a long time,” Boasberg said last week, “and I believe justice requires me to move promptly on this.”
Boasberg indicated he wants testimony from Erez Reuveni and Drew Ensign, the Justice Department deputy assistant attorney general, as part of sorting out who knew what and when. In response to objections from the government lawyer Tiberius Davis, the judge made clear he “certainly intends to determine what happened” when the Venezuelan migrants were flown into Salvadoran custody. He added that the government “can assist me to whatever degree it wishes.”
The exchange promises a contentious phase ahead: plaintiffs pressing for live testimony, the administration asserting its legal interpretation and executive prerogative, and Republicans condemning perceived judicial activism. The matter sits at the crossroads of national security, immigration policy, and the balance of powers, and it is already shaping up to be a test of how far courts can reach into fast-moving removal operations. Expect both legal maneuvering and political heat as the inquiry unfolds.
