Noem approved El Salvador deportations despite judge’s order, DOJ says

Updated November 25, 2025 — The Justice Department told a federal court that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem made the definitive call not to return deportation flights bound for El Salvador after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued orders that plaintiffs say required the planes to be turned around. The DOJ filing says Noem determined that the individuals already removed could be transferred to Salvadoran custody and that the action was lawful under a reasonable reading of the court’s order. The disclosure comes as Boasberg continues an inquiry into whether the administration defied his mid-March directives, including a verbal instruction to “turn around a plane,” and whether contempt proceedings are warranted.

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ filing on November 25, 2025, names Secretary Kristi Noem as the official who decided not to reroute midair deportation flights bound for El Salvador.
• U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered a temporary halt to removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in mid-March and verbally directed that planes en route be returned; the flights nonetheless reached El Salvador.
• The administration told the court it “did not violate” Boasberg’s order and that returning the flights was not required by the written order, though the judge described the government’s actions as showing “willful disregard.”
• Justice Department official Drew Ensign relayed Boasberg’s orders to DHS and DOJ leadership; Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Emil Bove advised DHS counsel, who then briefed Noem.
• The deportations at issue were part of a Trump administration program to transfer accused Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador; detainees remained detained there for months after transfer.
• The ACLU, which brought the underlying lawsuit, has sought live testimony from multiple DHS and DOJ officials, including former DOJ attorney Erez Revueni; the DOJ opposed live testimony in its filing.
• An appeals panel rejected Boasberg’s finding of probable cause for contempt but allowed his broader probe into compliance to continue; Boasberg has signaled he will resume the inquiry.

Background

In mid-March 2025, Judge James Boasberg issued a written order blocking a set of removals carried out under the federal Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely used statute invoked by the Trump administration to expel noncitizens alleged to be linked to violent transnational gangs. Plaintiffs challenged those removals, arguing the migrants had been denied adequate process and that some flights had already departed when the court intervened. Boasberg also gave a verbal direction earlier in the day instructing officials to return aircraft already en route; the written order did not explicitly repeat that instruction, a discrepancy central to the administration’s defense.

Following the judge’s actions, some deportation flights nevertheless reached El Salvador, where several of the transferred men were held in Salvadoran custody for months. The administration has defended the program as a lawful tool for addressing violent crime and said it relied on the Alien Enemies Act. Courts, civil-rights groups and advocacy organizations, led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have challenged that use and pressed for transparency about decision-making inside DHS and the Justice Department.

Main Event

On November 25, 2025, the Justice Department filed a court submission identifying which DHS and DOJ officials were involved after Boasberg issued his mid-March orders. That filing states that DOJ official Drew Ensign relayed the judge’s orders to senior leadership, and that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove provided counsel to DHS’s acting general counsel. According to the filing, that guidance reached Secretary Noem, who made the final determination not to turn the aircraft around.

The filing quotes Noem’s conclusion that the class of detainees “who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador.” The DOJ argued the transfers were lawful and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the court’s written order. The government asserted it “did not violate” Boasberg’s order and that further proceedings were unnecessary.

Boasberg has criticized the government’s handling, saying at one point it showed “willful disregard” for his rulings. He also found probable cause for contempt in an earlier ruling, a finding that an appeals court later vacated; however, a separate appellate panel allowed Boasberg to continue investigating whether the administration disobeyed the court. The judge has signaled he will resume the contempt inquiry in the coming weeks.

Analysis & Implications

The case tests the limits of an 18th-century statute, the Alien Enemies Act, when deployed as a tool for modern immigration enforcement and cross-border transfers. If courts sustain narrow readings of the statute or emphasize procedural due process, the administration’s reliance on the law could face continued judicial skepticism. Conversely, a finding that officials acted lawfully would validate an aggressive enforcement posture and could encourage similar uses in future cases.

The disclosure that Secretary Noem personally approved the decision sharpens political and legal scrutiny. Naming specific senior officials — Ensign, Blanche and Bove — shifts the inquiry from abstract institutional responsibility to individual decision-making, which may increase the likelihood of depositions or targeted testimony if the court orders them. The ACLU has requested live witnesses; the DOJ countered that live testimony is unnecessary, a stance that may be resolved by the judge’s ongoing inquiry.

The international implications matter as well. Sending accused gang members to El Salvador implicates diplomatic and human-rights considerations: Salvadoran authorities detained transferred men for months, raising questions about conditions and legal protections abroad. If U.S. courts limit such transfers, the administration may have to fall back on domestic detention or removal to other countries, complicating bilateral cooperation on transnational crime.

Comparison & Data

The table outlines the key procedural milestones relevant to the litigation and the flights. While specific numbers of flights and detainees have been reported in prior coverage, the court filings supplied on November 25 focus on the chain of advice and the legal rationale offered by the government rather than fresh numeric totals. Tracking future docket entries will be necessary to quantify potential sanctions or remedies if the court finds noncompliance.

Reactions & Quotes

The filing and subsequent public responses elicited sharply different framings from advocates and officials.

“The government did not violate the Court’s order,”

Justice Department filing (Nov. 25, 2025)

The DOJ used this phrase to argue against additional proceedings, asserting its interpretation of the written order justified the transfers and that no further court action was required at this time.

“[The government] showed a willful disregard”

Judge James Boasberg

Boasberg used that language in earlier proceedings to describe the government’s conduct after his mid-March directives. The judge’s characterization helped trigger his finding of probable cause for contempt, which appeals judges later reviewed.

“No live testimony is warranted at this time,”

Justice Department filing

The DOJ opposed the ACLU’s request for open-court witness testimony, arguing written submissions suffice. The ACLU, representing the plaintiffs, has requested multiple DHS and DOJ officials as live witnesses to probe the decision chain that reached Secretary Noem.

Unconfirmed

• Whether Secretary Noem received explicit, contemporaneous legal advice recommending a specific course of action beyond what the filing summarizes remains unclear; the filing describes advice relayed through counsel but does not include contemporaneous memos.
• The precise number of flights and individual detainees affected by the mid-March orders was not detailed in the November 25 filing and remains to be quantified in court records or government disclosures.
• Allegations by former DOJ attorney Erez Revueni that the department attempted to mislead judges have been denied by the DOJ and have not been independently substantiated in public filings.

Bottom Line

The Justice Department’s November 25 filing crystallizes the locus of decision-making: Secretary Kristi Noem is identified as the official who approved allowing deportation flights to continue to El Salvador despite Judge Boasberg’s mid-March instructions. That disclosure narrows the court’s fact-finding focus from institutional practices to named individuals, raising the stakes for potential testimony and further inquiry.

For policy and legal observers, the case tests how far an administration can press historic statutes like the Alien Enemies Act in contemporary immigration enforcement and how courts will police compliance with judicial orders. In the short term, expect additional docket activity as Boasberg advances his investigation and as advocates press for witness testimony and documentary records.

Sources

• CBS News (news report summarizing DOJ court filing and court proceedings)
• American Civil Liberties Union (advocacy organization representing plaintiffs)
• U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs (official DOJ communications and filings)