A federal judge has directed two senior Justice Department officials to take the stand in a case examining whether Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem should face criminal contempt charges for allegedly violating a March 2025 court order that paused the removal of Venezuelan migrants.
The Trump administration continued using the Alien Enemies Act to carry out deportation flights after that order, drawing scrutiny to former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni — who claims there were internal discussions about disregarding court directives — and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, who is said to have communicated the judge’s instructions to Homeland Security officials.
The ruling is the latest turn in a protracted legal fight over the government’s reliance on a seldom-used wartime law and the handling of migrant removal flights to El Salvador.
Why It Matters
At the heart of the dispute is a high-stakes clash over executive power and judicial authority: whether the Trump administration can invoke a centuries-old wartime statute to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants, and whether Secretary Noem knowingly defied a federal judge’s order to halt those removals.
The outcome will shape not only how the Alien Enemies Act may be used in immigration enforcement, but also the scope of due-process protections for migrants on U.S. soil and the practical power of courts to enforce their orders in fast-moving enforcement situations.
How the Legal Battle Began
The case grew out of a class-action lawsuit filed in March 2025 on behalf of Venezuelan detainees. They argued that the administration’s planned removals violated the Alien Enemies Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and constitutional due-process guarantees.
The complaint claimed the administration intended to rely on a forthcoming presidential proclamation to authorize “immediate” removals without meaningful judicial review. The legal theory treated the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as if it were a “foreign nation or government” engaged in an “invasion or predatory incursion,” in order to trigger the Alien Enemies Act.
On the evening of March 15, 2025, U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the removal of the named plaintiffs for 14 days.
Flights to El Salvador and the Judge’s Concerns
Subsequent filings revealed that two planes carrying Venezuelan detainees arrived in El Salvador despite the TRO.
That prompted the court to investigate whether its order had been violated.
In a December 8, 2025 order, Judge Boasberg noted that Secretary Noem had filed a declaration stating she decided to continue transferring custody of Alien Enemies Act detainees who had already been removed from the United States before the TRO was issued on the evening of March 15, 2025.
To build a more complete factual record, Boasberg directed plaintiffs to “attempt to secure the presence of Erez Reuveni for testimony on December 15, 2025,” and ordered the government to “produce Drew Ensign for testimony on December 16, 2025.”
He concluded that Noem’s declaration alone did not provide enough detail to determine whether her actions amounted to a willful violation of the TRO.
For criminal contempt, the court must find that its order was “clear and reasonably specific,” that “the defendant violated the order,” and that the violation was “willful.” At this stage, Boasberg wrote, “the Court cannot at this juncture find probable cause that her actions constituted criminal contempt.”
Witness Testimony That Could Shape a Contempt Decision
Reuveni, a former Justice Department lawyer, has filed a whistleblower complaint alleging internal conversations about potentially ignoring judicial orders — claims the administration has denied.
Ensign, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, is described as having conveyed Boasberg’s oral and written rulings to the Department of Homeland Security.
Boasberg characterized Noem’s submission as too “cursory” to support a finding of probable cause for criminal contempt. He said further testimony is needed “to clarify the decision-making around the flights to El Salvador before determining whether a contempt referral is warranted.”
Government lawyers have argued that the planes at issue had already left U.S. airspace by the time the TRO was signed and that the migrants on board had therefore already been “removed.”
On that basis, they maintain that the flights did not conflict with the TRO’s prohibition on removing “any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days.”
The contempt inquiry is proceeding alongside the broader lawsuit challenging the Alien Enemies Act proclamation itself.
The Broader Challenge to the Alien Enemies Act
The complaint asserts that the Alien Enemies Act may be invoked only during a declared war or an invasion by a foreign nation. It argues that applying it to a transnational criminal organization — in this case, Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan-origin gang — is beyond the statute’s authority and therefore ultra vires (an action taken without legal power).
Plaintiffs also claim that the expedited removal process cut off asylum protections, safeguards under the Convention Against Torture, and core due-process rights.
Boasberg’s upcoming hearings are expected to shed light on internal government communications and decision-making in the critical hours surrounding the issuance of the TRO.
Only after hearing from Reuveni and Ensign, he wrote, will the court decide whether the circumstances justify a criminal contempt referral.
As the case moves forward, it continues to probe the outer limits of executive immigration authority, the reach of wartime statutes in nontraditional contexts, and the capacity of federal courts to enforce emergency orders when enforcement actions are already in motion.
What People Are Saying
Kristi Noem, speaking about the migrants detained in CECOT, said: “We’re confident that people imprisoned there should be there… They should stay there for the rest of their lives.”
Whistleblower Erez Reuveni has alleged that Emil Bove of the Justice Department told DOJ lawyers that “the planes need to take off no matter what.”
What’s Next
The court will now take testimony from former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign so Judge James Boasberg can determine whether Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem willfully violated his March 15 order halting migrant removals.
Only after weighing their accounts and examining the surrounding decision-making will Boasberg decide whether to recommend criminal contempt proceedings. Meanwhile, the separate lawsuit challenging the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act continues, with the potential for further injunctions or disclosures as the court seeks to prevent additional removals while the litigation is ongoing.
