The Trump administration’s Department of Justice just dropped a legal bombshell in a heated clash with a federal judge over deportations.
According to the Daily Caller, the crux of this drama is a DOJ motion filed on Friday, December 12, 2025, to block current and former officials from testifying in a probe by Judge James Boasberg into whether the government defied a court order on deporting alleged Tren de Aragua gang members, while also pushing for the case to be reassigned due to claims of judicial bias.
Let’s rewind to March, when Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee, issued an order to stop deportation flights carrying suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The Supreme Court later tossed out that order, ruling it was filed in the wrong venue, but the damage was done—or so Boasberg seems to think.
By April, the judge declared there was “probable cause” to hold the government in criminal contempt for ignoring his initial directive.
Now, Boasberg is gearing up for contempt hearings next week to dig into whether the government deliberately flouted his ruling, and he’s not playing small ball—he’s demanding testimony from heavy hitters like former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.
The judge didn’t stop there; he’s also seeking written declarations from top administration figures, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem.
But the DOJ isn’t rolling over, filing a motion with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to have the case moved to another judge, arguing Boasberg has shown a pattern of retaliation and bias that undermines his impartiality.
Attorney General Pam Bondi took to X with a fiery take, stating, “His latest order threatens attorney-client privilege and the separation of powers underpinning our government — all because this Administration dared to remove Venezuelan Tren de Aragua terrorists from this country.” Well, Pam, if protecting national security is a crime, then this administration might just plead guilty with a grin.
The plot thickens with a whistleblower disclosure from Erez Reuveni, who claims Emil Bove—once a high-ranking DOJ official and now a federal judge—suggested the department might need to tell the courts to take a hike with some rather colorful language. Bove, for his part, has firmly denied ever advising anyone to defy a court order, leaving us to wonder if this is a case of miscommunication or something more sinister.
Meanwhile, Bondi doubled down on X, declaring, “This radical, retaliatory, unconstitutional campaign against the Trump Administration will not stand.” If this is a campaign, it’s starting to look like a judicial blockbuster, complete with cliffhangers and plot twists.
At the heart of this showdown is a fundamental question: where does judicial authority end and executive power begin, especially when national security is on the line?
The DOJ’s filing with the D.C. Circuit paints a grim picture of Boasberg’s actions as overreach, arguing that his push for testimony threatens privilege and lacks constitutional grounding, all while opposing counsel seems eager to turn this into a partisan circus.
Whatever happens next, this clash between the Trump administration and an Obama-era judge isn’t just a legal spat—it’s a battle over who gets to call the shots when it comes to protecting America from dangerous elements, and whether the courts can handcuff an administration trying to do just that.