T
he Trump Administration appears to have blatantly ignored a series of court orders over the weekend, prompting concerns among Democrats and legal experts that the feared constitutional crisis, once anticipated during Donald Trump’s presidency, may now be in full swing.
On Saturday, federal officials disregarded a ruling from Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which instructed the government to halt deportation flights of Venezuelan detainees. Instead, those flights continued to El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, boasted that the 238 detainees would face a minimum one-year detention at the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Bukele’s social media post, “Oopsie … Too late,” echoed sentiments from White House officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed gratitude for Bukele’s actions, conveniently ignoring the judge’s ruling.
The previous day, a similar scenario unfolded in Boston, where a federal judge issued a restraining order against the deportation of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University medical professor returning from Lebanon with a valid visa. Despite the judge’s order, she was deported regardless.
Taken together, these events suggest an increasing tendency by the Trump Administration to bypass judicial authority to fulfill its policy goals. This behavior aligns with a broader trend in which Trump and his supporters have sought to challenge judicial boundaries, often ignoring rulings or openly criticizing judges.
Law professor Kim Wehle from the University of Baltimore, a former assistant U.S. attorney, argues that we are “far beyond” a constitutional crisis. “A constitutional crisis arises from the consolidation of unchecked power within a single branch. The Trump Administration has been ignoring acts of Congress for weeks,” Wehle observes, pointing to the President’s dismissal of Congress’s fiscal authority, including withholding federal funds and removing federal employees and senior officials without cause.
Other legal analysts express concern but refrain from labeling the administration’s actions as a full-blown crisis. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, describes the administration’s current behavior as a challenge to the courts but stops short of 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 heads UVA’s Immigration, Migration, and Human Rights Program. “They haven’t made that statement yet. While their actions may skirt legality, they have, until now, largely complied.”
She adds, “I find their approach troubling and feel they’re being disingenuous…but I wouldn’t say they’ve definitively crossed the line into a refusal to adhere to the rule of law.”
Nevertheless, signs of overt defiance are emerging. White House officials indicated that the judge’s order arrived after the planes carrying Venezuelan migrants had already left the U.S. Tom Homan, the White House “border czar,” brushed off the weekend’s court rulings, arguing they were issued too late to matter.
“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 remarks, she maintained that the Administration was complying with the court order, despite the fact that the flights with Venezuelan deportees landed in El Salvador hours after the judge instructed Justice Department attorneys to return them to the U.S. “We are confident in our position, and we believe we will prevail in court,” Leavitt assured reporters, also questioning whether a verbal order holds the same weight as a written one.
Currently, federal judges are considering how to handle cases that could potentially reach the Supreme Court. Judge Boasberg has scheduled a hearing for Monday evening to determine whether the administration disregarded his ruling. In Massachusetts, Judge Leo T. Sorokin has demanded an explanation from the government regarding Dr. Alawieh’s deportation, which appears to violate his order.
The Administration asserts it invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a rarely used wartime law—to deport Venezuelans identified as affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang, sidestepping due process. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled against the administration’s use of emergency powers in immigration and border security matters, yet officials have continued actions many view as undermining judicial authority.
In the case of Dr. Alawieh, who is of Lebanese descent, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that she “openly admitted” to supporting a Hezbollah leader to CBP officers and attended the leader’s funeral. “A visa is a privilege, not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa denial,” the statement maintained. The official White House account on X tweeted: “Bye-bye, Rasha,” along with 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 blatant defiance to go unchallenged could significantly weaken the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power. “There is a significant concentration of power in one entity,” Wehle cautions. “This suggests that Donald Trump defines the law. He determines who benefits or suffers under it.”
“The system of checks and balances is deteriorating,” she adds.
The Trump Administration is actively framing both the deportations and its defiance of judicial orders as triumphs for the American people. Social media posts from administration officials and pro-Trump supporters have celebrated these deportations. One post featured a video of detainees being escorted onto planes, set to the 1998 Semisonic hit “Closing Time.”
