Trump’s defiance of a federal court order fuels a constitutional crisis − a legal scholar unpacks the complicated case

President Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on March 15, 2025, and deported about 200 Venezuelan immigrants his administration alleged have ties to a Venezuelan gang. U.S. District Court Judge James Bloasberg verbally issued an order that same day telling the government that the planes carrying the deportees must return to the United States.

The U.S. government, though, allowed the flights to continue and for the Venezuelans to be detained at a facility in El Salvador infamous for its mistreatment of prisoners.

The subsequent legal back-and-forth, which is still going on, intensified so quickly and dramatically that many legal scholars say the U.S. is past the point of a constitutional crisis, as the Trump administration appears to be defying a federal court order, for which Boasberg may hold the government in contempt. Trump has also called for Bloasberg to be impeached. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare public statement that day rejecting Trump’s statement.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a written statement on March 18.

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., posed a few questions to Cassandra Burke Robertson, a scholar of civil proceedings and legal ethics, to break down some of the dynamics of this complex, evolving case.

Is it rare for a Supreme Court justice to weigh in on politicians’ activities or statements?

It’s uncommon for a Supreme Court justice to publicly contradict a president. Roberts has typically shown great respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. He has also consistently recognized that presidents have broad authority to run the federal government.

However, this isn’t the first time Roberts has spoken up to protect judicial independence. During Trump’s first term in 2018, the president criticized rulings as coming from “Obama judges.” Roberts responded publicly, and said, “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Why is Roberts’ statement of note, and what influence does he have in this situation?

Roberts leads the U.S. Supreme Court. He also oversees all federal courts across the country.

Roberts takes this leadership role very seriously. He has been willing to speak up when he believes something threatens judicial operations and independence.

Since Roberts was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, he has often spoken publicly about why judges need to remain independent from political pressure. He has pointed out four main threats to judges’ independence: “violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

When Roberts makes a public statement, it carries weight because he speaks as the top judicial officer in the country. His words are a reminder about the importance of keeping courts free from political interference.

What is most important for people to understand about the Alien Enemies Act case that Judge Boasberg is currently considering?

First, Trump is using a rarely used wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act. This law allows for deportations during a time of war without the normal legal protections like court hearings. Some legal experts argue that Trump doesn’t have the authority to use this law since the U.S. isn’t officially at war with Venezuela or with the gang the administration has cited, Tren de Aragua. They worry that invoking the Alien Enemies Act inappropriately expands presidential power beyond constitutional limits and could be misused to target other immigrant groups.

Second, Boasberg ordered a stop to these deportations on March 15. But the Trump administration went ahead with the deportations anyway. It later claimed it did not violate the judge’s order because the planes were over international waters. Under our legal system, the executive branch must obey valid court orders. This case raises concerns about whether the president is respecting the authority of the courts.

Third, Trump has publicly called for Boasberg to be impeached, saying the judge overstepped his authority by ruling against the president’s actions. There’s no evidence that Boasberg acted corruptly or improperly – he simply made a legal ruling the president disagreed with.

The case touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power between presidents and courts, and what happens when an administration chooses not to follow a judge’s orders. This confrontation between branches represents one of the most direct challenges to judicial authority by a president in American history.

What would it take for a judge to be impeached, and what is the precedent for doing so, based on disagreements about a case?

Federal judges can only be impeached by Congress for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” That generally means serious wrongdoing, not just making unpopular decisions.

The impeachment process for judges works just like it does for presidents.

First, the House of Representatives votes to impeach, needing just a simple majority. Then, the Senate holds a trial where a two-thirds majority is needed to remove the judge.

Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached in the U.S., and of those, only eight were convicted by the Senate.

The only two judicial impeachments during this century involved very serious misconduct – including a judge who lied about sexually abusing two female employees in 2009.

Only judges who have serious misconduct have been impeached and removed from office – not those involved in cases of political disagreements about judicial decisions.

What are the most important legal and ethical questions that this case raises?

This case raises important questions about the rule of law in the U.S. A key American belief is that no one, not even the president, is above the law. As Thomas Paine famously wrote in 1776, “In America, the law is king.”

This doesn’t mean every court decision is always right. That’s why the legal system has appellate courts, as Roberts pointed out – so decisions people disagree with can be challenged through an appeal in proper channels. My scholarly research on the right to appeal explores how this process serves as a crucial safeguard in the country’s legal system.

Twenty years ago, Roberts also stressed how important the rule of law is, saying it “protects the rights and liberties of all Americans.”

When a government chooses to ignore court orders instead of appealing them through the legal system, it creates a serious threat to this principle. The current situation raises concerns about whether the federal government will continue to respect the boundaries established by the Constitution in the country’s legal system.