The judge stated that there was a probable cause for holding the U.S. in contempt

The Supreme Court’s opinion on the underlying constitutionality of Trump’s invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act

Alternatively, the government must provide the name of the person or people who chose not to halt Alien Enemies Act deportations out of the U.S. despite his order — and Boasberg said he would refer them for prosecution.

The flights occurred after the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy forward sued the Trump administration for using the Alien Enemies Act. They said the people were taken away without due process.

The government sent several planeloads of alleged gang members to El Salvador immediately after invoking the act, including 137 people under the statute, the White House said at the time.

President Trump on March 15 invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to target members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan prison gang that Trump says is invading the United States.

The court decides if probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt based on the actions of the government on that day. “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses were satisfactory.

Boasberg gave the federal government until April 23 to respond to try to “purge their contempt” and prove they did not violate his temporary restraining order.

The Supreme Court ruled last week that Democracy Forward and the ACLU should have brought their cases in a different court and under a different statute. But it didn’t rule on the underlying constitutionality of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act and also said any alleged gang members deported under the act need to be given notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest it.

“That Court’s later determination that the TRO [temporary restraining order] suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation,” Boasberg said about the Supreme Court’s opinion, referring to his temporary restraining order. “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, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.”

“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,” he added.

“Today’s decision affirms what we have long known: the government’s conduct in this case is unlawful and a threat to people and our constitution,” Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, said in a statement.

The Trump administration tried to appeal the order that required them to be deposed about the accidental deportation of one of their own.

It is hard to get to the heart of the matter in some cases. A panel of judges from the US Court of Appeals for theFourth Circuit said that it is not hard in this case. “The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order.”

Reply to Abrego Garcia’s “Comment on ‘Bringing him back to the United States” by J. Xinis

The Justice Department shared prior coverage of Pam Bondi in response to a request for comment. The president of Elazar stated he does not have the ability to bring Abrego Garcia back. “He is not coming back to our country,” Bondi said.

But the appellate court slapped down that notion, calling the relief the DOJ requested “extraordinary and premature.” They said that if the government conceded that Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported, “Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?”

The U.S. government has accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang, which the Trump administration has since designated a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Lawyers for Abrego Garcia argue that he is a member of the gang but not a criminal.

The Justice Department lawyers have not given much information about their attempts to bring him back, said Judge Xinis at a hearing earlier this week.

She ordered the government to go through expedited discovery, during which Abrego Garcia’s lawyers can question officials and request documentation about what they are doing — or not — to bring Abrego Garcia back.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration appealed the order of expedited discovery. The depositions of government officials areuntenable, because the Maryland court tried to dictate it from the bench, according to the DOJ.