TThe Trump Administration appears to have openly ignored multiple court orders over the weekend, stirring concerns among Democrats and legal experts that the constitutional crisis many feared upon Donald Trump’s election may indeed be materializing.
On Saturday, federal authorities disregarded a directive from Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which required the government to suspend deportation flights involving Venezuelan detainees. Instead, the flights continued to El Salvador, where Trump ally President Nayib Bukele proudly announced the detention of the 238 detainees for at least a year at the nation’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Bukele’s social media post, “Oopsie … Too late,” was later echoed by White House officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed gratitude for Bukele’s actions, conveniently ignoring the judge’s order.
A similar incident occurred in Boston the day prior, where a federal judge issued a restraining order against the deportation of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University medical professor with a valid visa returning from Lebanon. Despite the judge’s order, she was deported anyway.
Together, these events suggest the Trump Administration’s increasing tendency to circumvent judicial authority in pursuit of its policy goals. This behavior aligns with a broader trend where Trump and his supporters have sought to challenge the limits of judicial power, occasionally ignoring rulings or openly criticizing judges.
Law professor Kim Wehle from the University of Baltimore, who previously served as an assistant U.S. attorney, argues that the nation has moved “far beyond” a constitutional crisis. “A constitutional crisis occurs when one branch consolidates unchecked power. The Trump Administration has been dismissing acts of Congress for weeks,” Wehle points out, emphasizing the President’s neglect of Congress’s fiscal authority by withholding federal funds and dismissing federal employees and senior officials without cause.
Other legal specialists express concern but stop short of labeling the administration’s actions as an outright crisis. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, describes the administration’s current behavior as a challenge to court authority but refrains from calling it a constitutional crisis.
“I hesitate to label it a constitutional crisis because I’m waiting for them to explicitly declare, ‘We will no longer comply with court orders,’” says Frost, who leads UVA’s Immigration, Migration, and Human Rights Program. “They haven’t made that statement yet. While their actions flirt with illegality, they have, up to this point, generally complied.”
She adds, “I find their approach troubling and feel they’re being disingenuous…but I wouldn’t claim they’ve definitively crossed the line into refusing to follow the rule of law.”
Nonetheless, unmistakable signs of defiance are emerging. White House officials indicated that the judge’s order arrived after the planes carrying Venezuelan migrants had already departed the U.S. Tom Homan, the White House “border czar,” dismissed the weekend’s court rulings, asserting they were issued too late to have any impact.
“We’re not stopping,” Homan declared. “I don’t care what the judges think.”
When White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked to clarify Homan’s comments, she insisted that the Administration was complying with the court order, even though the planes with Venezuelan deportees landed in El Salvador just hours after the judge instructed Justice Department attorneys that the flights should return to the U.S. “We are confident in our position and believe we will prevail in court,” Leavitt assured reporters, also casting doubt on whether a verbal order holds the same weight as a written one.
Federal judges are currently considering how to address cases that could potentially escalate to the Supreme Court. Judge Boasberg has scheduled a hearing for Monday evening to determine whether the administration ignored his ruling. In Massachusetts, Judge Leo T. Sorokin is demanding an explanation from the government regarding Dr. Alawieh’s deportation, which appears to violate his order.
The Administration claims to have invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a rarely used wartime law—to deport Venezuelans identified as members of the Tren de Aragua gang, circumventing due process. Federal courts have consistently ruled against the administration’s use of emergency powers in immigration and border security matters, yet officials persist in actions that many believe undermine judicial authority.
In the case of Dr. Alawieh, who is of Lebanese descent, the Department of Homeland Security alleged she “openly admitted” her support for a Hezbollah leader to CBP officers and attended their funeral. “A visa is a privilege, not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa denial,” the statement claimed. The official White House account on X commented: “Bye-bye, Rasha,” alongside a waving emoji. Alawieh was sent back to Lebanon, despite the judge’s order to keep her in the U.S. for a court hearing on Monday.
Legal experts warn that allowing such defiance to go unpunished could greatly weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. “There is a significant concentration of power within a single entity,” Wehle cautions. “This suggests that Donald Trump defines the law. He determines who benefits or suffers under the law.”
“The system of checks and balances is deteriorating,” she adds.
The Trump Administration is actively attempting to portray both the deportations and its noncompliance with judicial orders as victories for the American people. Social media posts from administration officials and pro-Trump supporters have celebrated these deportations. One such post featured a video of detained individuals being escorted onto planes, set to the tune of the 1998 Semisonic hit “Closing Time.”
