The Trump administration asked a federal appeals court late Wednesday to intervene after a lower court threatened to hold officials in criminal contempt over a controversial round of deportation flights to El Salvador in March.

The Justice Department’s emergency request to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals follows a blistering order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who said President Donald Trump‘s administration appeared to have “willfully disregarded” his March 15 injunction halting deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law written to remove suspected national security threats during wartime. The Trump administration has invoked it to remove suspected members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang.

Recommended Stories

• Charlie Kirk splits with Trump on antisemitism crackdown, warns free speech rights under attack
• Former NYPD officer sentenced to 18 months for acting as a Chinese agent
• Trump denounces judge's ruling on migrants' legal status: 'Out of control'

Boasberg said there was probable cause to hold administration officials in contempt and gave the DOJ until April 23 to explain why criminal proceedings shouldn’t move forward. If officials fail to comply, the court may hold additional hearings or refer the matter for prosecution.

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order,” Boasberg wrote, “sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.”

The administration’s filing to the appeals court did not include new facts, as the D.C. Circuit had already reviewed the case once before, ruling 2-1 to uphold Boasberg’s temporary restraining order. That order blocked flights deporting Salvadoran nationals identified by DHS as possible public safety threats.

However, the Supreme Court delivered a partial victory to the government last month, ruling 5-4 that deportation flights may resume as long as individuals were given a chance to challenge their designation as gang members before removal.

Despite that ruling, Boasberg said evidence suggested that flights conducted on March 15 directly violated his order and that the government’s explanations to date had been “woefully insufficient.”

What is Boasberg seeking from the Trump administration?

On Wednesday, Boasberg specifically called out DOJ attorney Drew Ensign for failing to provide details about who in the administration authorized the flights and whether officials knew about the restraining order Boasberg had issued just before they took off.

The judge said the court was still open to “other methods” of coming into compliance, hinting at possible off-ramps if officials cooperate before next week’s deadline that would “purge” the threat of contempt. Boasberg said in his order that the “most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed … so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.”

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told the Washington Examiner that Boasberg’s latest move raises “a question of: does [the judge] want the information or does he want the body?” He added that it would be “fascinating” to watch further proceedings because the government is almost never held in contempt.

In earlier proceedings, DOJ attorneys told Boasberg they could not provide details about the logistics surrounding the March 15 flights, citing national security and state secrets concerns, though the contempt threat may prompt the government to provide more information now.

But because the Trump administration is seeking higher court review, it appears the government is not yet ready to follow Boasberg’s guidance to purge the threat of contempt.

ACLU lawyers also make long-shot request to keep Boasberg on the case

Also on Wednesday, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers for migrants who were already deported under the Alien Enemies Act asked Boasberg to allow plaintiffs a chance to dispute their gang designation in Washington, D.C., court, even though they have already been deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador.

The ACLU’s request aims to keep the case alive and possibly bring deportees back to contest the legality of their removal, though Rahmani indicated it is unlikely plaintiffs can file such claims outside of the jurisdiction where they were detained, citing the Supreme Court’s decision.

“I mean, look, it’s a swing for the fences,” said Rahmani. “I’m sure they expect to lose. I expect them to lose, and [it’s] an unlikely event that they win.”

And whether the D.C. Circuit will act on the government’s request to review the threat of contempt is also an open question.

JUDGE BOASBERG FINDS CAUSE FOR CRIMINAL CONTEMPT OVER TRUMP MIGRANTS FLIGHTS

“Generally, only final orders are appealable, so a threat doesn’t qualify,” Rahmani said. “But this is an extraordinary case, so the D.C. Circuit may grant an extraordinary writ and step in.”

The case has become a high-stakes flashpoint in the broader war over executive immigration powers, particularly as the Trump administration intensifies efforts to deport migrants labeled as security threats under emergency authorities, including Salvadoran nationals linked to MS-13 or other violent gangs.