A federal court in Washington, D.C. ruled there is probable cause to hold President Donald Trump in criminal contempt of court, and the court can pursue the prosecution of officials it finds in contempt. This ruling comes after the removal of 237 individuals who the government alleges belong to the Venezuelan transnational gang, Tren de Aragua, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Before their removal, the court had ordered the government to halt their deportation for 14 days.
This action by the federal government marks the continuation of Trump’s efforts to remove those he believes are a threat to the U.S. While the removal of undocumented migrants and criminals has continued, many others have found themselves in the crosshairs of immigration authorities. These people include students on visas, a man with judicial protection from deportation and citizens.
These removals have not gone unnoticed by the legal world. On March 15, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent to an El Salvador prison due to an “administrative error” despite being protected from deportation as of 2019. Since then, not only has a federal judge ordered his return by April 7, but the Supreme Court has also stepped in, requesting Garcia be returned so his case can be “handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” The Trump administration has, up until recently, held that Garcia will not be returned in defiance of both orders. If Garcia was returned, he would “have come back, had one extra step of paperwork and gone back [to El Salvador] again,” USAG Pam Bondi stated. “He’s from El Salvador, he’s in El Salvador and that’s where the President plans on keeping him.” Garcia’s attorneys have pushed for Trump to be held in contempt of court.
While immigration disputes between the executive and judicial branches have taken center stage, Trump has ignored and argued over other court disputes. Those include judges blocking his efforts to freeze federal funding for government programs, allowing DOGE access to sensitive data, and ending birthright citizenship.
Moving towards putting Trump in contempt of court for ignoring the judicial system marks the first effort by courts to hold the administration accountable for noncompliance. While no president has been held in contempt of court, civil and criminal contempt charges have been used to compel government agencies and officials to comply with orders. Civil contempt can be remedied by complying with the disputed order and usually involves fines, while criminal contempt cannot be avoided once a defendant is found guilty. Both can additionally involve sanctions and, in extreme cases, jail time. Judges could fine attorneys and officials, with sanctions lasting until the administration complies with court orders.
According to Boston University Constitutional Law Professor Robert Tsai, in an interview with the BBC, criminally charging the president will be unlikely because of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity ruling. Tsai explained, “All these orders are sort of policy decisions. They might be illegal, they might be unconstitutional, who knows? But, even if they are, they’re done within the scope of his core powers.” For now, it appears unclear what the result of Trump’s collision with the judicial branch will be and if the law or the lawman will bend first.
