Trump Administration Tells Judge To Be More ‘Respectful’ As Threats Mount

After days of defying a federal judge concerning the expulsion of hundreds of migrants to a brutal prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration told the judge Wednesday to be more “respectful.” In turn, the judge gave the administration 24 more hours to fulfill a demand for information related to the administration’s defiance of his previous orders.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s demands for information about flights carrying hundreds of migrants were actually “a picayune dispute over the micromanagement of immaterial factfinding” the Trump administration said in a new filing, which urged Boasberg to “stay,” or pause, his order for more information.

In response to the administration’s hissy fit, the judge said the government’s “grounds for such request at first blush are not persuasive,” but he nonetheless gave the administration 24 more hours to provide information he’s ordered about the expulsion flights, or otherwise to explain why it wanted to keep the information secret, setting a new deadline of noon Thursday.

Three planes carrying migrants expelled by the United States landed in El Salvador on Saturday night, hours after Boasberg verbally ordered the administration to turn them around and told Justice Department lawyers in court to effectuate the order “immediately.”

But the government didn’t do that. Instead, all three flights were allowed to land in El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele published a video showing the migrants, who had been living in the United States, being manhandled and having their heads shaved by prison guards. Bukele has said the migrants will do at least a year of forced labor. He and members of the Trump administration later mocked the judge’s order.

In its filing Wednesday morning, the Trump administration asserted “the Court’s continued intrusions into the prerogatives of the Executive Branch, especially on a non-legal and factually irrelevant matter, should end.” The brief also claimed: “The Court has no basis to intrude into the conduct of foreign affairs by the Government, and a more deliberative and respectful approach is warranted.”

That wasn’t all. Throughout the seven-page filing, the Trump administration railed against Boasberg, the chief judge for the Washington, D.C., district court, and said his request for supposedly “immaterial information” represented “grave usurpations” of the president’s power. The government again asserted that the case was “not even justiciable” — that is, that Boasberg had no right to even involve himself in Trump’s expulsion powers.

The judge gave the administration more time, as requested, but he wasn’t happy about it.

The information the court requested, Boasberg said, was “to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be.”

The confrontation came after days of stonewalling and defiance from the Trump administration.

White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Wednesday referred to various district court judges’ rulings as “lunacy” and “the gravest assault on democracy” that “must and will end.” And on Tuesday, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.” After Trump and others called for Boasberg’s impeachment, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare two-sentence rebuke.

Boasberg had ordered the administration to produce new information about the migrant flights, under seal, by noon Wednesday. Previously, the government refused to provide similar details during a hearing Monday, and after the judge demanded the information in written form, a filing midday Tuesday continued to stonewall on requested information.

Wednesday’s Trump administration filing repeatedly referred to the judge’s verbal order instead as a “comment,” which it said represented a “complete misunderstanding” of the situation.

The government has not provided any detailed information on the expelled migrants — other than asserting they are gang members — and the migrants were given no due process because the expulsions were largely carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old law that previously has only been used three times during declared wars. Multiple family members and lawyers say they know of people with no gang affiliation who were nonetheless sent to the Salvadoran prison.

The Trump administration contends that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is actually a terrorist group and a part of the Venezuelan “hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States.”

Though removals under the Alien Enemies Act have been paused by Boasberg for now, the administration has appealed the case.

“Particularly because the Court’s inquiries relate only to retrospective and immaterial facts, and not future compliance, there is simply no need for the information at issue before the D.C. Circuit can issue its stay ruling,” Wednesday’s Trump administration filing said, adding: “Continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the Government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the Executive Branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case.”

The filing, which, like others, carried the name of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Justice Department senior officials, said Boasberg’s orders were based on the premise “that the Judicial Branch is superior to the Executive Branch,” and presented a serious future risk “of micromanaged and unnecessary judicial fishing expeditions and potential public disclosure.”

It called for more time to determine “whether to invoke the state secrets privilege” concerning the flight information. (“The Government’s Motion is the first time it has suggested that disclosing the information requested by the Court could amount to the release of state secrets,” Boasberg said in response, noting that the government “has made no claim that the information at issue is even classified.”)

Of the three flights to El Salvador, the government asserts that the third was not carrying any migrants “solely” subject to the Alien Enemies Act, but rather, migrants that had already been through the immigration legal system and had final orders of removal.

For the other two flights, Boasberg has demanded information on how many people on the flights were subject to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation, the timing of their take-off and landing, when they left U.S. airspace, when they landed in foreign countries, and what time individuals subject to the proclamation were “transferred out of U.S. custody.”

The administration said providing the information under seal “would result in an immediate flood of media inquiries and demands for the information, subjecting the diplomatic relationships at issue to unacceptable uncertainty about how the Court will address those demands.” But Boasberg noted that the administration itself had engaged in “extensive promotion” of the flights.

The next hearing in the case is set for Friday, though the D.C. circuit court may weigh in before then on the Trump administration’s motion for a stay pending appeal. Boasberg said he was “not persuaded” by the government’s convention that a stay was warranted given the pending request for a stay at the circuit level.

“In support of that assertion, the Government reiterates its arguments that the [temporary restraining orders] were lawfully defective,” he wrote. “But, as explained above, the Court seeks the factual information at issue in order to determine whether the Government complied with the TROs.”

He quoted a 1967 Supreme Court decision — that the “rule of law … reflects a belief that in the fair administration of justice no man can be judge in his own case,” no matter how “exalted his station” or “righteous his motives.”