Trump Administration Probably Violated Court Order on Deportations, Judge Says

A federal judge in Washington said on Thursday that there was a “fair likelihood” that the Trump administration had violated an order he issued last month to stop deporting Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime law.

Speaking at a hearing, the judge, James E. Boasberg, said that he was likely to wait until next week to issue a ruling about whether the White House was in contempt of court for having ignored his order. The announcement that he would delay a final decision came after he spent nearly an hour in a remarkable interrogation of a Justice Department lawyer.

The tense hearing, in Federal District Court in Washington, was the latest turn in a dispute between Judge Boasberg and the Trump administration, which has repeatedly attacked him for having overstepped his authority by supposedly intruding on the president’s prerogative to conduct foreign affairs.

A couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trump called for Judge Boasberg to be impeached. And in the days that followed, some of his top aides — chief among them, Attorney General Pam Bondi — have gone on television to accuse him, among other things, of being “out of control.”

But during the hearing on Thursday, Judge Boasberg, a former homicide prosecutor, was anything but out of control. Adopting the tone of an inquisitor, he led the department lawyer, Drew Ensign, through a series of questions intended to determine whether the Trump administration had hurried the Venezuelan migrants onto planes and rushed them off the runway on March 15 in an effort to avoid his order stopping them.

Judge Boasberg also grilled Mr. Ensign about a subject that was potentially even more sensitive: who in the administration knew about his order when it was handed down and who, if anyone, had given instructions for the planes transporting the migrants to El Salvador not to turn around.

Finding himself in the hot seat, Mr. Ensign often stumbled as he tried to respond to Judge Boasberg’s inquiries. He repeatedly said that he either did not know the answers or asserted that the information was protected by attorney-client privilege.

Judge Boasberg has promised to “get to the bottom” of the issue and as the hearing ended, he left open the possibility that there could be more proceedings or that he could demand testimony from some of the officials involved in the affair.

The question of whether anyone in the administration should be held in contempt of court is separate from the underlying debate about whether the White House properly used the wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, when it deported to El Salvador about 100 Venezuelans accused of being members of a violent street gang called Tren de Aragua.

The act, which was passed in 1798, is supposed to be used only in times of declared war or during an invasion against people in the United States from a “hostile nation.” And Judge Boasberg, at a previous hearing, expressed skepticism that the administration was using the statute in a lawful manner.

Still, the dispute about whether Trump officials complied with the judge’s order was significant because it teed up a potential showdown between the judicial and executive branches. If Judge Boasberg eventually decides the administration was in contempt, he will then have to consider whether — and how — to punish anyone involved.

The subject of who might have been involved resulted in some of the sharpest questions that Judge Boasberg asked Mr. Ensign during Thursday’s hearing.

Under pressure, Mr. Ensign acknowledged that after the judge had issued his initial order stopping the flights last month, he sent an email to officials at the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security. He also admitted that he had alerted several low-level Justice Department officials about the ruling, but said that he could not recall if he had told anyone else at the department, especially those in higher office.

Moreover, Mr. Ensign said that he had no idea who had allowed the planes of migrants to continue on their way to El Salvador, provoking an incredulous reaction from Judge Boasberg.

“Who made the decision either not to tell the pilots anything or to let them keep going?” Judge Boasberg asked.

“Your honor, I don’t know that,” Mr. Ensign replied.

“You’re standing here telling me you have no idea who made the decision to not bring the planes back?” asked the judge.

Mr. Ensign said that was the case, adding, “I do not know those operational details.”

Justice Department lawyers have repeatedly stonewalled Judge Boasberg’s efforts to query them about what administration officials knew about his order stopping the flights and when they knew it. Last month, for example, they sought at the last minute to cancel a hearing where they were expected to be asked about those topics and then made an unusual attempt to kick him off the case.

Last week, the Justice Department refused again to provide Judge Boasberg with details about the timing of the deportation flights, asserting a rare legal doctrine called the state secrets privilege. The doctrine can allow the executive branch to block the use of evidence in court — and sometimes shut down entire lawsuits — when it says litigating matters in open court would risk revealing information that could damage national security.

In court on Thursday, Judge Boasberg seemed to scoff at the idea that information about the deportation flights should be considered a state secret. He got Mr. Ensign to acknowledge that the flight data he wanted was unclassified and then asked if there was any precedent for the government to protect unclassified materials under the rubric of national security.

Mr. Ensign, appearing to struggle with the question, cited a case that seemed to support his assertion. But when Judge Boasberg asked if was sure, he acknowledged that he might have been mistaken.