White House Denies Defying Court Order on Venezuelan Deportations

The White House has denied accusations that it violated a federal judge’s order to halt the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador. If the administration did proceed with the deportations despite the ruling, it could escalate an ongoing legal battle over presidential authority into a constitutional crisis.

At the center of the controversy is the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, an 18th-century law, to justify the expulsions. This rare legal maneuver, spearheaded by President Donald Trump, has sparked debate over executive overreach.
Court Blocks Deportations, but Administration Proceeds

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary order barring the deportations while reviewing the legal implications of invoking the Alien Enemies Act. He stated in court that any planes already in the air carrying deportees should turn back.

Despite this, the administration announced on Sunday that 250 Venezuelan migrants, allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang, were already in El Salvadorian custody. The timeline of events remains unclear, raising questions about whether the White House defied the judge’s directive.

In a carefully worded statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt insisted that the administration had not disregarded the court order.


“The Administration did not ‘refuse to comply’ with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist (Tren de Aragua) aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory,” Leavitt stated.

Her remarks, particularly her reference to the order as having "no lawful basis," suggest the White House is asserting its authority to determine the legality of judicial decisions—something that is typically the role of the courts.
Legal and Political Ramifications

The precise timing of Judge Boasberg’s orders and their relation to the deportations remains in question. If the administration acted in defiance of the ruling, it would mark one of the most serious legal challenges of Trump’s presidency.

Critics argue that Trump is taking sweeping executive actions without waiting for judicial or congressional oversight. His use of the Alien Enemies Act, historically invoked only in wartime, is particularly controversial. The U.S. is not at war with Venezuela, and while Trump has repeatedly described illegal immigration as an "invasion," Congress holds the constitutional authority to declare war—not the president.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) commented on CNN’s State of the Union:


“We expect the executive branch to follow the law. We are a constitutional republic, and we will follow those laws.”

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted on social media that over 250 suspected gang members had been transferred to El Salvador, where they would be detained “at a fair price.” The U.S. government is paying $6 million for their detention.

The timing of the deportations in relation to the court order is now a central issue in the case.
Broader Implications: Free Speech and Government Overreach

The administration is also facing scrutiny over its crackdown on student protests and the recent arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian refugee and former Columbia University student. His green card was revoked due to his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations.

Khalil’s supporters argue that he is being punished for exercising his First Amendment rights. However, Rubio claimed on CBS’s Face the Nation that Khalil had misled immigration authorities and supported groups linked to terrorism:


“We never should have allowed him in, in the first place. If he had told us, ‘I’m going to be a leader of a movement that will turn an elite college upside down,’ we wouldn’t have let him in.”

U.S. law prohibits individuals who “endorse or espouse terrorist activities” from obtaining visas. However, it is unclear whether those rules apply retroactively to legal permanent residents like Khalil. A federal judge has blocked his deportation for now.
Trump’s Aggressive Use of Executive Power

Trump’s actions reflect a broader strategy: acting quickly and decisively, knowing that legal challenges often take time to resolve. By the time courts intervene, many of his policies may already be in effect.

This pattern raises fundamental questions about the scope of presidential power. As multiple legal battles head toward the Supreme Court, one question looms large:

Does Trump have the authority he claims—or is he pushing the boundaries of executive power beyond its constitutional limits?

The administration isn’t waiting for an answer. Trump is moving forward, reshaping American governance and institutions in ways that could prove difficult to reverse.