Welcome to The Logoff: Today I’m focusing on two federal judges threatening to hold the Trump administration in contempt, escalating a conflict between the president and the courts with major implications for the balance of power in our republic.
What’s the latest? Judge James Boasberg said today that, if President Donald Trump’s team does not give the dozens of Venezuelan men sent to a Salvadorian prison a chance to legally challenge their removal, he’ll begin contempt proceedings against the administration. In March, Boasberg ordered the administration to halt the deportation flights — and to turn around any planes that had already taken off. The administration did not comply.
In a separate case, Judge Paula Xinis demanded Tuesday that the administration answer questions about why it was not complying with a Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the release of a man who was — by the administration’s own admission — sent to a Salvadorian prison via an “administrative error.” Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are asking the court to hold the administration in contempt, but Xinis said she first wanted to review its responses.
What’s next? A Trump spokesperson said today that the administration would appeal Boasberg’s ruling. In the Xinis case, the administration has two weeks to comply with the judge’s request for answers.
What happens if a judge finds the administration in contempt of court? The judicial branch largely relies on the executive branch to enforce its decisions, including imposing consequences for contempt of court. But what happens when you ask the executive branch — and particularly this executive branch — to impose consequences on itself? That’s not clear.
What’s the big picture? Do judges have the power to compel the administration to change its behavior? The results of these two cases will go a long way toward providing an answer to that crucial question. And if that answer is “no,” then the single most powerful check on Trump’s power will be greatly diminished.
