SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
james boasberg
Judge Rules Trump Admin Must Give Due Process to Venezuelans Sent to El Salvador Torture Prison
"This ruling makes clear the government can't just send people off to a brutal foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away," said an ACLU lawyer representing the men.
Dec 23, 2025
A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it deported over 200 Venezuelan nationals to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process earlier this year.
On Monday, Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Trump administration to submit plans by January 5 for 137 men to contest their designation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows foreign nationals from "hostile" nations to be removed without hearings.
In March, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport two planeloads of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador without any explanation or court hearing. They were sent to a mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, which is known to subject inmates to torture and severe deprivation, with zero contact with the outside world.
The administration claimed the men were members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the administration referred to as a "hybrid criminal state" invading the United States. In reality, only a few dozen of the 238 men sent to CECOT had any criminal charges against them. As part of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) efforts to fast-track their deportations, many were rounded up based solely on the fact that they had tattoos.
“Plaintiffs should not have been removed in the manner that they were, with virtually no notice and no opportunity to contest the bases of their removal, in clear contravention of their due-process rights,” Boasberg wrote.
Boasberg is the same judge who launched criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration in April for "willful disregard" of his order to stop the flights to El Salvador. A pair of Trump-appointed judges later halted those proceedings.
In a "60 Minutes" special that was recently spiked by CBS News' Trump-friendly editor-in-chief, Bari Weiss, several inmates testified to the conditions they were subject to inside CECOT.
"The first thing they told us was that we would never see the light of day or night again," said college student Luis Muñoz Pinto, who came to the US from Venezuela in 2024 through the legal asylum process. He said the CECOT director told prisoners, "Welcome to hell. I'll make sure you never leave."
According to a report published by Human Rights Watch in November, inmates were beaten daily, subject to sexual violence by guards, deprived of basic food, medical treatment, and hygiene, and forced to participate in degrading torture rituals.
Pinto, who now lives in Colombia, has no criminal record. "I never even got a traffic ticket," he said.
While the Trump administration claimed it no longer had jurisdiction over the prisoners once they were in El Salvador, and therefore could not follow court orders to bring them back to the US, this was belied by filings from the government of the far-right Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele at the United Nations, which stated that "the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively" with the US.
The men detained at CECOT were then transferred, mainly to Venezuela, in July as part of a prisoner exchange for 10 US nationals.
Boasberg says the US government "maintained constructive custody" of the men while they were interned in CECOT and that it violated their rights to due process by not allowing them to contest the accusations that they were gang members.
He said the Trump administration must give them a "meaningful opportunity to contest their designation," by allowing them to return to the US for a court hearing. He said the government "could also theoretically offer plaintiffs a hearing without returning them to the United States so long as such a hearing satisfied the requirements of due process."
"This ruling makes clear the government can't just send people off to a brutal foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away," said Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the ACLU, who served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
The Trump administration will almost certainly appeal the ruling. And while many of the former CECOT inmates may seek to return for their day in court, some say the experience has left them traumatized and fearful of returning to the United States.
Jerce Reyes Barrios, a professional soccer player and youth coach, returned to Venezuela after being released in July. According to his attorney, he was falsely accused due to a tattoo that the government claimed was a gang symbol, but was actually based on the Real Madrid soccer logo.
"I've focused my time on taking care of my daughters, coaching young kids, all to avoid those thoughts. At night, I sometimes have nightmares, and I feel like I'm still in CECOT," Reyes Barrios told ABC News. "At this moment, I'm not ready to decide if I want to fight this case."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Appointed Judges Quash Contempt of Court Case Against White House
Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented and described the other two judges' ruling as a "grave disservice."
Aug 08, 2025
Two judges appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday at least temporarily shut down a bid by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to potentially hold members of the Trump administration in contempt of court.
Politico reported that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted in a 2-1 ruling to quash contempt proceedings that Boasberg initiated against the Trump administration after he found there was probable cause to believe officials had defied his orders by sending 130 Venezuelan immigrants to be detained at El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by Trump, ruled in favor of shutting down the hearings. Judge Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, dissented and described the other two judges' ruling as a "grave disservice" to Boasberg.
Politico noted that the ruling does not totally shut the door on Boasberg holding administration officials in contempt.
Among other things, the full 11-member bench of the D.C. Circuit could decide to take up the case and overrule the three-judge panel. Additionally, Judge Rao stopped short of saying that her ruling completely foreclosed upon the possibility that Boasberg could initiate criminal contempt proceedings against members of the administration.
In an interview with Politico, ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt signaled that an appeal of some kind was forthcoming.
"We strongly disagree with the ruling and are considering all options going forward," Gelernt said. "The opinion brushes aside the considerable evidence that has emerged that DOJ's lawyers understood the order at the time and simply ignored it."
The possible contempt of court charges stemmed from a ruling that Boasberg delivered back in March demanding that the administration halt and return the group of Venezuelan immigrants who were sent to El Salvador. The men were sent to the prison regardless and administration officials argued that they had no jurisdiction to order their return because the plane they were on had already left American airspace at the time of Boasberg's ruling.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DOJ Targets Federal Judge for Warning Trump Could Spark 'Constitutional Crisis'
Judge James Boasberg reportedly raised concerns that the Trump administration "would disregard rulings of federal courts," something the White House has done repeatedly.
Jul 29, 2025
The Trump Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against a federal judge for warning in early March that the president could spark a "constitutional crisis" by defying court orders—a concern that was swiftly validated.
The complaint against James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who alleged on social media that Boasberg made "improper public comments" about President Donald Trump and his administration.
During a March gathering of the Judicial Conference—the federal judiciary's policymaking body—Boasberg reportedly raised colleagues' fears that "the administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."
John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, "expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize," according to a memo obtained by The Federalist, a right-wing publication.
Days after the Judicial Conference gathering, the Trump administration ignored Boasberg's order to turn around deportation flights, prompting an ACLU attorney to warn, "I think we're getting very close" to a constitutional crisis.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, later said there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt of court, concluding that the evidence demonstrated "a willful disregard" for the judge's order.
Boasberg's rulings against the Trump administration in the high-profile deportation case stemming from the president's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act have made the judge a target of the White House and its allies. Trump and some congressional Republicans have demanded that Boasberg be impeached.
Politico reported Monday that the Justice Department's complaint against Boasberg was signed by Chad Mizelle, Bondi's chief of staff.
"Mizelle argued that Boasberg's views expressed at the conference violated the 'presumption of regularity' that courts typically afford to the executive branch," Politico noted. "And the Bondi aide said that the administration has followed all court orders, though several lower courts have found that the administration defied their commands."
A Washington Post analysis published last week estimated that Trump officials have been accused of violating court orders in "a third of the more than 160 lawsuits against the administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Salvadoran Officials Say for First Time US Has Authority Over 130 Detainees at Notorious Prison
"We are pleased that El Salvador publicly told the truth about what we all knew: that it's the United States that controls the fate of the Venezuelans," said one attorney.
Jul 08, 2025
A Monday court filing by attorneys for migrants being held in El Salvador's notorious maximum-security prison contained what one expert called a "huge" admission by Salvadoran officials that casts new doubt on the Trump administration's claims that it can't bring back the 130 men it sent to the facility.
In a filing submitted to Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., lawyers for four of the migrants included a document that the Salvadoran government had sent to the United Nations in response to an inquiry about their detention at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Contrary to the Trump administration's claims—and those of far-right Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele—officials representing the Bukele government said in the filing that "the jurisdiction and legal responsibility for these persons lie exclusively with the competent foreign authorities, by virtue of international agreements signed and in accordance with the principles of sovereignty and international cooperation in criminal matters."
The four men whose disappearances are being investigated by the U.N. Office of The High Commissioner for Human Rights Working Group are among the more than 100 migrants whom the Trump administration swiftly sent to CECOT in mid-March after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law that allows the U.S. government to expedite the deportations of non-citizens deemed to be a national security threat.
The law has previously only been invoked during wartime, but the administration has claimed the people sent to CECOT—citing questionable and threadbare evidence in many cases—are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, which the White House has claimed is working in connection with Venezuela's government.
As Common Dreams reported in May, the U.S. intelligence agencies never endorsed Trump's claim that the street gang was taking orders from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro—raising one of many legal questions about the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act and his claim that Tren de Aragua has "invaded" the United States.
The filing on Monday by lawyers at Democracy Forward and the ACLU also called into question the administration's repeated claims that it has no authority to bring the migrants back from El Salvador, which has agreed to detain the men under a $6 million deal.
"The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other State," the Salvadoran authorities told the U.N., according to the filing.
The lawyers also told Boasberg that the Trump administration was clearly aware of El Salvador's statements about the men being held at CECOT, as U.S. officials were copied in the Salvadorans' communication to the United Nations.
"We are pleased that El Salvador publicly told the truth about what we all knew: that it's the United States that controls the fate of the Venezuelans," Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the ACLU, told The New York Times. "That the United States did not provide us or the court with this information is extraordinary."
Boasberg has expressed frustration with the White House several times since first taking on the case regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act. He ordered two deportation flights to be turned around in March, and said the following month that there was "probable cause" to hold administration officials in contempt of court for disobeying the order.
Last month, the judge ordered the administration to provide detainees at CECOT with habeas corpus relief and said the mass removal of the men was unlawful.
The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful, but ordered the White House to provide people with sufficient opportunity to contest their removal under the law.
Last week, a federal appeals court in New Orleans held a hearing on Trump's use of the law in a case that is likely to make its way to the Supreme Court.
In March, the case of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia became one of the most high-profile cases of the migrants who were sent to CECOT. The forced removal of Abrego Garcia, who had no criminal record and was accused by an anonymous police informant of being a gang member, was the result of an "administrative error," according to the U.S. Department of Justice, but both Trump and Bukele claimed they had no authority to bring him home.
Last month Abrego Garcia was transferred from El Salvador to a prison in Tennessee, where he faces charges of transporting migrants.
His lawyers last week described "severe beatings" that Abrego Garcia and other migrants sent to CECOT suffered when they arrived at the prison. A court filing also detailed "severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture."
"This," said journalist Megan Stack after Abrego Garcia's account was made public, "is where our government sends people with no due process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Gives Trump One Week to Provide Habeas Corpus Relief to Venezuelans in CECOT
"Today's ruling affirms what every American knows: In the United States, people are entitled to due process and no one should be removed from the country without it."
Jun 05, 2025
The Trump administration has a week to resolve what a federal judge in Washington, D.C. said has become a Kafkaesque legal battle for more than 130 Venezuelan people who were summarily expelled from the United States, after the judge ruled late Wednesday that the mass removal of the men was unlawful.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. ordered the Trump administration to provide the migrants with habeas corpus relief and gave officials a week to propose, in writing, how they will ensure the imprisoned men will be permitted to fight their expulsion and detention in court.
The plaintiffs "never had any opportunity to challenge the government's say-so," said Boasberg, noting that since the Venezuelan men were sent to El Salvador—with President Donald Trump and other officials claiming they were members of the gang Tren de Aragua— "significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in [prison] have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous accusations."
Boasberg compared the ordeal of the Venezuelan migrants to Franz Kafka's The Trial, in which the protagonist is arrested for an unspecified crime.
"In our nation—unlike the one into which K. awakes—the government's mere promise that there has been no mistake does not suffice," wrote Boasberg.
A "lengthy ruling" that begins "by quoting from Franz Kafka's The Trial, a novel associated with an absurd legal ordeal... could be a bad sign for the government," wrote legal analyst Jordan Rubin at NBC News.
The ruling is the latest demand from Boasberg that the Trump administration provide due process to people it sent to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
He issued a temporary restraining order in March after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act—a law previously only used during wartime to detain or deport citizens of countries the U.S. was fighting—and demanded that the administration turn back planes carrying 137 Venezuelans to El Salvador. He later threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for ignoring the order.
Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which is helping to represent plaintiffs in the case, J.G.G. v. Trump, said that "today's ruling affirms what every American knows: In the United States, people are entitled to due process and no one should be removed from the country without it."
"What has long separated the United States from autocratic regimes is the recognition of this process. We will continue to oppose this administration’s attempts to re-write the protections afforded under our Constitution," said Perryman.
Following the ruling, U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said, "the administration must act."
Scott Michelman, legal director at the ACLU of the District of Columbia, said the ruling "vindicates one of the most fundamental promises of our nation's Constitution: that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. At stake in this case is no less than whether a U.S. president can, at will, disappear people he views as enemies. No practice could be more odious to our Constitution."
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the administration could resume removals under the Alien Enemies Act but said officials must provide people with sufficient notice before they were expelled.
The ruling prevented Boasberg from granting nationwide relief to migrants who are detained in state and federal detention centers, but the ACLU asked the judge to consider the case of the men who had already been sent to CECOT.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Judge Boasberg Demands to Know If Trump Can Really Bring Abrego Garcia Home With a Phone Call
The judge questioned administration attorneys in a hearing on whether the White House has "constructive custody" of nearly 140 Venezuelan men it sent to El Salvador.
May 08, 2025
At a hearing Wednesday on the status of nearly 140 Venezuelan immigrants whom the Trump administration hastily expelled to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, a federal judge told lawyers representing the detainees that there were "a lot of facts in their favor" regarding whether the White House has the authority to return the men to the United States.
During the hearing, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., questioned U.S. Department of Justice lawyers to determine whether the U.S. has "constructive custody" of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland man whom the administration has insisted it can't bring back to the country even though he was mistakenly sent to El Salvador—and other prisoners at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
If the White House does have constructive custody of the men, with El Salvador detaining them at the behest of the U.S. government, it would be possible to bring them back to the U.S. to receive due process—which DOJ lawyer Abishek Kambli reluctantly conceded they had not received before their expulsion.
Boasberg zeroed in on a comment President Donald Trump made in an ABC News interview last week about Abrego Garcia, when he told reporter Terry Moran that he "could" make a phone call to Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to secure the Maryland father's return.
"You could pick it up and with all the power of the presidency, you could call up the president of El Salvador and say, 'Send him back,'" said Moran.
"And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that," Trump said.
On Wednesday Boasberg demanded to know if Trump's comments were accurate.
"Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?" he asked.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve."
Kambli replied that Trump was just speaking of "the influence that he has" but doubled down on the claim that the president's position of power doesn't equal legal control of constructive custody.
The White House has claimed it has no jurisdiction over the migrants even though they were sent to El Salvador under a $6 million deal Trump struck with Bukele.
Boasberg pointed to comments by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a visit to CECOT in which she suggested the U.S. is in control of who is sent to and remains at the prison.
"What about Secretary Noem saying CECOT is 'one of the tools in our tool kit that we will use if you commit crimes against the American people,'" Boasberg asked Kambli, quoting Noem directly. "Is she wrong about that?"
Kambli attempted to deflect the suggestion that the U.S. is paying El Salvador directly to house migrants, saying that despite Noem's remarks, the administration has only paid "grants" to Bukele's government "for law enforcement and anti-crime purposes."
Boasberg also asked point-blank: "Is the United States paying the government of El Salvador to detain the migrants?"
Kambli did not reply directly, saying only that "there is no agreement or arrangement whereby the United States maintains any agency or control over these prisoners."
At another point the judge forced Kambli to admit that—contrary to repeated claims by Trump—the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule in his favor regarding his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, which the White House has used to expel people it accuses of being members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court lifted a block imposed by Boasberg in an earlier ruling on the Alien Enemies Act, but did not uphold Trump's invocation of the rarely-used law.
"I know your client believes the Supreme Court upheld the invocation of the AEA," Boasberg told Kambli. "You agree the Supreme Court never did that, correct?"
Law & Crime reported that "almost audible squirming ensued" as Kambli gave "several evasive answers" before Boasberg read the Supreme Court ruling verbatim.
"They did not analyze that precise issue," Kambli finally admitted.
Former congressman Conor Lamb suggested Boasberg's harsh questioning of the Trump administration is what is needed in the judicial system as the president continues his mass deportation operation and threatens due process rights.
"A country in which Trump can do whatever he wants to these people, say whatever he wants about what he did, but be protected from what he said in a case about what he did, is not the democratic country we have known or that we deserve," said Lamb. "Judges, we need you now."
Law & Crime reported that Boasberg "signaled an obvious inclination toward finding the U.S. does have constructive custody over the relevant Venezuelan nationals detained in CECOT" before ordering the Trump administration to provide sworn declarations regarding who has official custody.
The judge ordered the organizations representing the plaintiffs, the ACLU and Democracy Forward, to decide by Monday whether to request new documents and depositions from the government in the ongoing case.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Federal Judge Says There Is 'Probable Cause' to Hold Trump Officials in 'Criminal Contempt'
Judge James Boasberg accused White House officials of "willful disregard" of his order to turn deportation flights headed to El Salvador.
Apr 16, 2025
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. said Wednesday that he has given the Trump administration "ample opportunity to rectify or explain" why it violated his order last month to stop planes flying hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, where they are being held in a notorious prison—and warned that he could soon hold officials in contempt of court.
"The court ultimately determines that the government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its order, sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt," Boasberg wrote in the 46-page ruling.
The ruling pertained to the clear instructions Boasberg gave administration lawyers last month when he issued a nationwide restraining order in response to President Donald Trump's invoking of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and deployment of two deportation flights.
Boasberg noted that his ruling stands even though his order last month was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the case regarding the deportation flights should have been filed in Texas, where the Venezuelan migrants were flown from, instead of Washington, D.C.
"That court's later determination that the [temporary restraining order] suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the
government's violation," said Boasberg. "If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt."
The case regarding Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act—which he invoked to fast-track the expulsion of 238 migrants accused of being in the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua despite a lack of criminal history or convictions for many of them—has unfolded alongside another case in the Washington D.C. court, in which Judge Paula Xinis has demanded the administration work to free one migrant mistakenly sent to El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Xinis said Tuesday she was opening an inquiry into the Department of Justice's refusal to comply with a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who has denied allegations that he is a member of the gang MS-13 and who had court-ordered protection from being deported to El Salvador.
In Boasberg's ruling, the judge warned that the Trump administration can "purge its contempt" by affording due process to the Venezuelan migrants it sent to El Salvador.
"And if they don't, then we're heading towards a special prosecutor for criminal contempt prosecutions," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick of the American Immigration Council.
Being found in criminal contempt could result in fines or prison time for Trump administration officials.
"The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it," wrote Boasberg.
He cited the 1795 ruling in United States v. Peters, adding "To permit such officials to freely 'annul the judgments of the courts of the United States' would not just 'destroy the rights acquired under those judgments'; it would make 'a solemn mockery' of 'the Constitution itself.'... So fatal a result must be deprecated by all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Chief Justice Rebukes Trump Over Calls to Impeach Judges Who Rule Against Him
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," said John Roberts, the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mar 18, 2025
The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare statement on Tuesday rebuking calls from President Donald Trump and members of his orbit for the impeachment of federal judges who have ruled against the administration as it tramples the law to advance its far-right agenda.
"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose," said Chief Justice John Roberts, whom critics have long seen as an enabler of Trump.
As Jay Willis of Balls & Strikes noted earlier this month, Roberts "authored the opinion in Trump v. United States, a case in which the six Republican justices effectively ended the ongoing criminal investigations into Trump, clearing the way for his election victory five months later."
"Before that," Willis added, "Roberts was part of the narrow majority in Trump v. Anderson that declared that only an act of Congress could bar Trump from serving as president again, notwithstanding the Constitution's explicit bar on insurrectionists holding public office that makes no mention of any requirement of a separate act of Congress."
congratulations to john roberts who is as responsible for the current state of affairs as any single person in the country
[image or embed]
— jamelle (@jamellebouie.net) March 18, 2025 at 12:50 PM
While Roberts' brief statement on Tuesday does not mention Trump by name, it comes hours after the president took to his social media platform to attack the federal judge who issued an order over the weekend barring the administration from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.
The Trump administrationdefied that order. In his social media post on Tuesday, Trump called Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—an Obama appointee—a "radical left lunatic" who "should be impeached."
Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas) has filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg, who criticized the Trump administration during a hearing Monday over its refusal to comply with his order halting the deportation flights to El Salvador.
The impeachment push against Boasberg is part of a broader assault on the federal judiciary by Trump and his allies, who have expressed outrage at recent rulings against the administration as it assails basic rights and attempts to unilaterally eviscerate government departments.
Axios reported Tuesday that "top MAGA-world figures are leaning into a fight with the judicial system." The outlet pointed to comments by former chief White House strategist Steve Bannon, who said Monday that "I think there ought to be a much broader swath of impeachments" against federal judges.
"We have to fight fire with fire," Bannon said.
Axios added that "the Article III Project, a 'brass knuckles' conservative legal group, launched a petition to build support for Congress to impeach the judge who ordered a halt to the deportations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy