Judge Expands Criminal Contempt Probe After Kristi Noem’s Limited Answers on Deportation Flights

Lead

On Monday, Dec. 8, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg widened a criminal contempt investigation after South Dakota Governor and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem provided a brief sworn statement about a March deportation episode. The judge ordered senior Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign to testify under oath next week and signaled interest in testimony from former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni. The inquiry centers on decisions in mid-March that led to migrants being deported to El Salvador under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act despite the court’s order to halt flights. Boasberg said live testimony is necessary because Noem’s declaration left key questions unanswered.

Key Takeaways

• On Dec. 8, 2025, Judge James Boasberg expanded a criminal contempt probe related to March deportation flights to El Salvador.
• Drew Ensign, a senior DOJ immigration lawyer, was ordered to testify under oath about actions on March 15, 2025.
• Boasberg also identified Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ attorney and whistleblower, as a witness of interest.
• The migrants were removed under the Alien Enemies Act and later held in a large El Salvadoran prison before a summer release tied to a Venezuela prisoner swap.
• In April 2025 Boasberg had previously found probable cause that the government may have committed criminal contempt.
• The D.C. Circuit paused the proceedings earlier in the year but recently cleared the path for Boasberg to resume his inquiry.
• The ACLU, representing the migrants, urged full testimony, citing “overwhelming evidence” that court orders were disregarded.

Background

The case springs from mid-March 2025 events when immigration officials moved migrants to El Salvador using the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used 18th-century wartime authority. Judge Boasberg issued orders at the time directing flights carrying the migrants to turn around while legal challenges to the administration’s use of the statute were pending. Despite the court’s direction, the transfers proceeded and the migrants were held in a large Salvadoran detention facility for several months.

In April 2025 Boasberg concluded there was probable cause to find the Government in criminal contempt, but active investigation stalled after the D.C. Circuit intervened. This year the appellate court has allowed the district judge to resume fact-finding, prompting renewed court activity and orders for live testimony. The controversy has drawn scrutiny of senior officials across DHS and DOJ, whistleblower allegations, and statements from advocacy groups representing the migrants.

Main Event

On March 15, 2025, courtroom filings and subsequent disclosures show that Boasberg issued an order intended to stop flights carrying migrants bound for El Salvador. According to court materials, Drew Ensign relayed the judge’s orders to Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department leadership that day. Despite that transmission, flights continued and the migrants were removed from U.S. custody.

Boasberg stated in a Dec. 8 order that Kristi Noem’s sworn declaration did not supply sufficient factual detail to determine whether her decision to allow transfers was a willful violation of the court’s order. Because of those informational gaps, he concluded the court cannot yet find probable cause that Noem committed criminal contempt and sought live testimony to probe the decision-making chain.

The judge also signaled interest in Erez Reuveni, whose earlier whistleblower complaint accused senior DOJ figures of discussing plans to ignore court orders as part of the administration’s deportation campaign. Reuveni’s allegations have been described in court filings as one of several significant developments the judge must examine as the contempt inquiry resumes.

Analysis & Implications

The order for sworn testimony of a senior DOJ lawyer elevates the dispute from a paper record to live witness scrutiny, increasing the likelihood of revealing contemporaneous communications among top officials. If testimony shows deliberate disregard for a federal court order, it could expose senior officials to criminal contempt charges, a rare and serious sanction that tests separation-of-powers norms. Conversely, if witnesses provide credible explanations for their actions, the inquiry may close without additional charges, but reputational and institutional damage would remain.

Politically, the probe places the administration’s immigration enforcement strategy under judicial microscope at a sensitive time, raising questions about checks on executive action in national security and immigration. Use of the Alien Enemies Act—an uncommon legal tool—complicates both the legal analysis and public understanding, since the statute dates to wartime authority and has limited recent precedent. Internationally, the episode and the reported detention of migrants in El Salvador, followed by a summer release tied to a prisoner swap with Venezuela, may affect bilateral and regional diplomatic dynamics.

For the courts, the case tests how aggressively a federal judge can enforce orders against the executive branch when national security labels or ancient statutory authorities are invoked. The D.C. Circuit’s recent green light to resume investigation underscores that appellate review can delay but not indefinitely block district court efforts to examine possible contempt. Practically, the requirement for live testimony may produce contemporaneous emails, call logs, or other records that clarify who made decisive calls on March 15 and why.

Comparison & Data

The timeline shows a compressed sequence: a mid-March operational decision, an April judicial finding of probable cause, months of appellate delay, and renewed district-court fact-gathering in December. That pacing affected evidence preservation and the window for collecting contemporaneous records, making live testimony more valuable to establish immediate intent and communications.

Reactions & Quotes

Legal advocates for the migrants stressed the gravity of the allegations and the need for direct testimony to establish what senior officials knew and ordered. The ACLU attorney representing the migrants highlighted existing evidence and urged the court to hear witnesses with firsthand knowledge.

“Given the overwhelming evidence that already exists indicating the administration deliberately violated the court’s order, Judge Boasberg has understandably chosen to seek direct testimony from those with direct knowledge.”

Lee Gelernt, ACLU attorney

The judge emphasized the procedural gap left by Noem’s declaration and the necessity of live testimony to determine whether actions amounted to willful contempt.

“As this declaration does not provide enough information for the Court to determine whether her decision was a willful violation of the Court’s Order, the Court cannot at this juncture find probable cause.”

Judge James Boasberg (excerpt)

Department officials have acknowledged that Ensign communicated the judge’s order that day; the department has previously characterized his action as promptly conveying the court’s direction to relevant leadership. The court’s subpoena of a senior DOJ lawyer signals intensified scrutiny of how and why decisions were made.

Unconfirmed

• Allegations in a whistleblower complaint that a then-top DOJ official instructed colleagues to ignore court orders remain under review and have not been independently verified in open filings.
• The precise content and timing of communications between Noem, DOJ leadership, and DHS about the decision to allow transfers have not been fully disclosed to the court.

Bottom Line

Judge Boasberg’s move to compel live testimony from a senior DOJ lawyer escalates a rare judicial inquiry into whether executive actions overrode a federal court order. The testimony may resolve critical open questions about who decided to continue the March transfers and whether those decisions were taken in conscious defiance of the court.

Beyond this case, the proceedings will shape precedent on enforcement of judicial orders against the executive branch and clarify the limits of using historical wartime statutes in contemporary immigration policy. Observers should expect additional document disclosures and sworn witness accounts in the coming weeks as the court seeks to build a factual record.

Sources

• CNN — national news report summarizing court filings and statements.