Two federal judges may hold Trump in contempt as he defies courts in immigration crackdown

A second U.S. judge scolded the Trump administration on Tuesday night for failing to answer questions in an ongoing deportation case, raising the threat that some Trump officials could be held in contempt of court.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland upbraided Trump officials for failing to comply with the court’s requests for information in a case involving the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — accusing officials in a blistering eight-page order of submitting “vague, evasive and incomplete” responses that she said demonstrated “willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations.”

She further described the Justice Department’s “false premise” objections as “a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations.”

Xinis is not the first federal judge to raise the possibility of holding the Trump administration in contempt for failing to abide by court orders. Just 15 miles away, at a courthouse in Washington, D.C., another judge had already threatened the same.

FEDERAL JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG FINDS PROBABLE CAUSE TO HOLD TRUMP IN CONTEMPT OVER DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

At issue in both cases is President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a wartime immigration law the administration invoked last month to immediately deport certain individuals from the U.S. to El Salvador.

Hours after Trump’s March 14 proclamation that he would use the law to deport certain migrants — including alleged members of the gangs MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, or TdA — the U.S. sent more than 260 migrants to El Salvador to be detained in the country’s maximum-security prison.

The weeks since have been characterized by a wave of frantic court proceedings, appeals, and emergency Supreme Court orders, as judges across the country weigh the administration’s use of the wartime law. 

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP’S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

But Trump’s lawyers have appeared less than willing to share certain information with the courts. Their behavior has sparked fury from federal judges, who have accused them on more than one occasion of acting in bad faith and willfully defying their orders.

Xinis took umbrage Tuesday night at the administration’s refusal to respond to at least one interrogatory, saying their refusal is “based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody” in El Salvador.

She also rebuked officials for their failure to comply with her earlier order to return Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man and alleged MS-13 member who was wrongfully deported last month to El Salvador. “For weeks, Defendants have sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege, using them as a shield to obstruct discovery and evade compliance with this Court’s orders,” she said.

Her earlier ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court in an emergency order. The ruling said the government must “facilitate” his release — a definition that was subsequently clarified again by Xinis and by judges on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

“‘Facilitate’ is an active verb,” U.S. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee, said in authoring the circuit court opinion. 

“It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear,” he added.

TRUMP ADMIN DEFIES COURT OVER MARYLAND DEPORTATION, IGNITES LEGAL SHOWDOWN

At a hearing last week, Xinis ordered an “intense” and expedited two-week discovery period to determine whether the Trump administration has acted in good faith to comply with her order to return Abrego Garcia. Should they fail to supply the required information, or indicate they acted in bad faith, she could have sufficient information to move to consider possible contempt proceedings.

Additionally, in a related case, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said there was probable cause to find Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to return deportation flights to El Salvador on March 15.

In a 48-page ruling, Boasberg accused the government of “willful disregard” for court directives, citing missed deadlines to submit flight details and identify officials who knew about his emergency order halting removals. Although a federal appeals court in D.C. has paused the contempt proceedings, Boasberg has requested further declarations and warned that officials may be required to testify under oath.

If they fail to comply, the judge could refer the case to the Justice Department for prosecution or appoint outside counsel if DOJ declines.

JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: ‘PRETTY SKETCHY’

The appeals court that paused Boasberg’s contempt proceedings did so temporarily, requesting additional briefing from both the Justice Department and ACLU attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

What happens next remains uncertain. Trump officials have repeatedly railed against so-called “activist judges,” accusing courts of obstructing the administration’s immigration agenda. In an earlier emergency appeal, officials claimed Boasberg’s actions amounted to a “massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority to remove dangerous aliens,” arguing those individuals “pose threats to the American people.”

Meanwhile, Judge Xinis’s order in Maryland comes amid a flurry of immigration-related legal battles nationwide, as Trump pushes forward with his border security priorities.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that the administration can continue using the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants, provided they receive due process protections, including the right to challenge removals in court.

Separately, federal judges in New York and Texas temporarily blocked use of the Alien Enemies Act in specific cases, siding with plaintiffs who argued certain migrants could be removed without a chance to seek habeas relief.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment on next steps in the Abrego Garcia case, or on the possibility that Xinis might move on possible contempt proceedings.