Noem made decision not to turn around deportation flights bound for El Salvador after judge’s order, DOJ says. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem ultimately decided to allow a group of deportees to be transferred into the custody of El Salvador, a move that occurred after a U.S. District Judge had explicitly ordered their flights to be returned to the United States, according to a court filing by the Justice Department on Tuesday, November 25, 2025. This revelation came as U.S. District Judge James Boasberg continued his rigorous inquiry into whether the Trump administration demonstrated a "willful disregard" for his mid-March 2025 rulings, including a specific verbal directive to "turn around a plane" if necessary.
The Justice Department, in its filing, asserted that the administration "did not violate" Boasberg’s order and argued that "no further proceedings are warranted or appropriate." However, the filing did identify the key Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice Department officials who participated in the decision-making process that led to the flights proceeding to El Salvador instead of reversing course. Shortly after Judge Boasberg issued his critical rulings, Justice Department official Drew Ensign was responsible for conveying these orders to both DHS and Justice Department leadership. Following this, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove provided counsel to DHS’s acting general counsel, who then communicated this advice directly to Secretary Noem.
It was Secretary Noem who, after receiving this advice, concluded 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 Justice Department’s filing maintained that this action was "lawful and was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Court’s order," framing the decision as a legitimate exercise of executive authority within the perceived ambiguities of the judicial directive.
The flights at the center of this controversy were part of a broader Trump administration initiative designed to deport individuals accused of being members of Venezuelan gangs to El Salvador. Upon arrival, the Salvadoran government held these individuals in prison for several months. The Trump administration defended this strategy by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, contending that such measures were warranted as part of its aggressive crackdown on violent crime and national security threats. However, this approach has consistently met with significant pushback from various courts and civil liberties advocates, who have argued strenuously that the deportees were not afforded adequate due process, raising fundamental questions about their constitutional rights and the rule of law.
One particular lawsuit, initiated by the migrants themselves, prompted Judge Boasberg to issue a temporary halt to removals under the Alien Enemies Act. Crucially, his order included an instruction for any deportation flights that had already departed to be returned to the United States. Despite this clear directive, the flights that were already airborne continued their journey to El Salvador. Judge Boasberg publicly accused the government of disobeying his orders and stated there was probable cause to hold the government in contempt of court, signaling a serious breach of judicial authority.
The administration has consistently denied any disobedience of Judge Boasberg’s orders, primarily by highlighting a perceived discrepancy between his written and verbal orders issued on March 15. While the judge’s written order blocked a specific set of Alien Enemies Act deportations, it did not explicitly reiterate the command to turn around planes already en route, a directive that had been central to his verbal order earlier the same day. This alleged inconsistency became a key point of contention for the administration in its defense.
The legal battle saw further twists when appeals court judges initially dismissed Boasberg’s finding of probable cause for contempt. However, a different panel of judges subsequently ruled that Boasberg, who holds the position of chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., was indeed authorized to continue his investigation into whether the Trump administration had violated his court order. Judge Boasberg signaled last week that he intended to resume his contempt of court inquiry, ensuring the legal scrutiny of the administration’s actions would persist.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the plaintiffs in this case, has been vocal in its demands, formally requesting that more than half a dozen potential witnesses from both DHS and the Justice Department be called to testify in open court regarding the decision not to recall the deportation planes. Among the witnesses suggested by the ACLU is Erez Revueni, a former Justice Department attorney who has previously accused the department of attempting to defy or mislead judges in several instances, including specific allegations related to this deportation case. The Justice Department, for its part, has denied Revueni’s allegations and, in its recent filing, stated definitively: "No live testimony is warranted at this time." This refusal sets the stage for further legal sparring over transparency and accountability.
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a rarely invoked statute, allows for the apprehension and deportation of non-citizens during times of declared war or hostility. Its application in this context, targeting individuals accused of gang affiliation without a formal declaration of war against their nation of origin or a clear link to national security threats in the traditional sense, sparked profound legal and ethical concerns. Critics argued that using such an antiquated and extreme measure circumvented modern immigration laws and fundamental due process protections, potentially setting a dangerous precedent for executive overreach. The core of the legal challenge has centered on whether the administration correctly applied this law and, more importantly, whether the individuals subjected to deportation received the basic rights to legal representation, a fair hearing, and the opportunity to challenge their removal.
The controversy surrounding Secretary Noem’s decision underscores a persistent tension in American governance: the balance of power between the executive branch’s prerogative to enforce immigration laws and the judiciary’s responsibility to ensure those actions adhere to constitutional principles and statutory requirements. The judge’s "turn around a plane" order was an extraordinary directive, reflecting a grave concern that fundamental rights were being violated in real-time. The administration’s choice to interpret this order narrowly, focusing on the written document’s omissions rather than the clear verbal intent, highlights a strategic legal maneuver to maintain executive control over a politically charged policy.
The potential ramifications of a finding of contempt against the government or specific officials could be significant, ranging from judicial sanctions and fines to a powerful public rebuke of executive authority. While individual officials might be shielded by sovereign immunity in some contexts, a judicial finding of "willful disregard" would undoubtedly cast a long shadow over their careers and the integrity of the institutions they represent. The ACLU’s insistence on live testimony underscores the desire for public accountability and transparency, aiming to uncover the precise chain of command and the justifications provided at each step of the decision-making process. The Justice Department’s resistance to this demand suggests an effort to control the narrative and minimize the perceived culpability of its officials and the administration.
As Judge Boasberg’s inquiry continues, the case serves as a critical examination of the limits of executive power, the sanctity of judicial orders, and the due process rights of individuals caught in the crosshairs of aggressive immigration enforcement policies. The outcome will not only determine the accountability of officials in this specific instance but also potentially shape the future landscape of immigration law enforcement and the delicate balance between national security and individual liberties in the United States.
