Legal Battle Over Presidential Power and Due Process

A United States federal judge on Wednesday, November 19, 2025, revived a high-stakes legal inquiry into whether Trump administration officials should be held in criminal contempt for defying a court order that prohibited the deportation of hundreds of men to El Salvador earlier this year. The decision by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington D.C. reopens a contentious chapter concerning the limits of executive power and the rights of migrants, a topic with significant global implications.

The case originates from a series of events in March 2025, when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely used wartime law, to summarily deport nearly 300 Venezuelan nationals. The administration alleged the men were members of the Tren de Aragua, a transnational criminal gang. As lawyers for the men scrambled to challenge the legality of using the centuries-old act, Judge Boasberg issued an emergency order on Saturday, March 15, 2025, for the deportation flights, already airborne, to be turned around. The planes, however, continued to their destination, landing in El Salvador where the men were transferred to a notorious maximum-security prison known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).

The Contempt of Court Proceedings

During a court conference on Wednesday, Judge Boasberg stated his intention to move forward with a factual inquiry, which had been stalled for seven months by a federal appeals court. "It seems that a factual inquiry is in order, and the best way to proceed would appear to be bringing in witnesses and having them testify under oath," Boasberg announced, signaling that administration officials may be compelled to testify. He has requested the Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represents the deported men, to submit proposals by Monday, November 24, on how the inquiry should proceed.

The Justice Department has consistently argued that the administration did not willfully defy the court, asserting that the planes were in international airspace when the judge's final written order was issued, and thus outside U.S. jurisdiction. However, Judge Boasberg had previously found "probable cause" to believe the government acted in "willful disregard" of his orders, a finding that was later set aside by a divided appeals court panel before a larger panel affirmed Boasberg's authority to continue investigating the matter.

Implications for Global Immigration Policy and Kenya

While this legal drama unfolds thousands of miles away, its underpinnings carry significant weight for Kenya and the East Africa region. The Trump administration's actions in this case are part of a broader, aggressive immigration strategy that includes "safe third country" agreements and other deportation deals with nations around the world. Under these arrangements, the U.S. can deport asylum-seekers and other migrants to countries other than their own, often in exchange for financial incentives or diplomatic concessions.

Recent reports from August 2025 confirmed that Uganda had agreed to accept deportees from the U.S. who are not Ugandan citizens. Similarly, Ghana secured visa concessions after agreeing to accept deportees. These precedents demonstrate a transactional approach to immigration enforcement that could extend to other African nations, including Kenya, which hosts a significant refugee population and is a key strategic partner for the U.S. in the region. An April 11, 2025, statement on the U.S. Embassy in Kenya's website underscored the Trump administration's focus on strict adherence to U.S. immigration laws.

The use of third-country deportations has been condemned by human rights organizations for potentially violating international law by sending vulnerable individuals to places where they may face harm, without due process. The El Salvador case is a stark example, with reports from Human Rights Watch and Cristosal alleging that the deported Venezuelans, many of whom had no criminal record, were subjected to torture and other abuses in the CECOT prison. The outcome of Judge Boasberg's inquiry could set a critical precedent on whether a U.S. administration can be held accountable for such actions, a question of profound importance for the future of international migration management and human rights standards globally.