The Trump Administration’s recent actions appear to directly contradict multiple court orders, intensifying concerns among Democrats and legal experts that a constitutional crisis, long feared since Donald Trump’s election, is now unfolding.
On Saturday, federal officials disregarded an order from Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who mandated the reversal of deportation flights carrying Venezuelan detainees. Instead, the flights proceeded to El Salvador, where President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, announced the 238 detainees would be held for at least a year at the country’s Terrorism Confinement Center. Bukele posted “Oopsie … Too late” on social media, a message amplified by White House officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio thanked the Salvadoran president, notably ignoring the judge’s ruling.
The previous day, a similar event occurred in Boston. A federal judge issued a restraining order to halt the deportation of Rasha Alawieh, a Brown University medical professor with a valid visa, who was returning from a family visit to Lebanon. Despite the order, she was deported.
These incidents suggest an increasing willingness within the Trump Administration to disregard judicial authority to achieve its policy objectives. This behavior aligns with a pattern where Trump and his allies have sought to challenge the boundaries of judicial power, sometimes circumventing rulings and, at other times, directly attacking judges.
Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and former assistant U.S. attorney, believes the country is “far beyond” a constitutional crisis. She argues a constitutional crisis arises from the concentration of unchecked power within a single branch. Wehle points out that the Trump Administration has been ignoring acts of Congress for weeks, citing the President’s disregard for Congress’ constitutional power over federal funds and the termination of federal employees and senior officials without justification.
While equally concerned, other legal scholars are reluctant to definitively label the administration’s actions as a full-blown crisis. Amanda Frost, a law professor at the University of Virginia, describes the administration as testing the limits of the courts.
“I don’t want to call it a constitutional crisis because I’m waiting to see them say in their own words, ‘We will not comply with court orders anymore,’” says Frost, who is the director of UVA’s Immigration, Migration, and Human Rights Program. “They have yet to say that. And while they’ve done some things to violate corners of the margins, they have so far followed along.”
She adds, “I’m very concerned and think they’re being very disingenuous…but I would not say that they have yet crossed the line of suggesting they no longer feel that they need to abide by the rule of law.”
However, indications of open defiance are surfacing. White House officials stated that the judge’s order was issued after the planes carrying Venezuelan migrants had already departed. Tom Homan, Trump’s White House “border czar,” dismissed the weekend’s rulings, asserting on Fox News that the court orders came too late to have an impact.
“We’re not stopping,” Homan said. “I don’t care what the judges think.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, when questioned about these comments on Monday afternoon, maintained that the Administration is adhering to the court order, despite the fact that the planes carrying Venezuelan deportees landed in El Salvador hours after the judge verbally instructed Justice Department attorneys to return the flights to the U.S. “We are quite confident in that, and we are wholly confident that we are going to win this case in court,” Leavitt told reporters. She also questioned “whether a verbal order carries the same weight as a … written order.”
Federal judges are now considering how to respond to these cases, which may eventually reach the Supreme Court. Judge Boasberg scheduled a hearing to determine if the administration defied his ruling. In Massachusetts, Judge Leo T. Sorokin has demanded an explanation from the government regarding Dr. Alawieh’s deportation, which appeared to violate his order.
The Administration claims it invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a wartime law rarely used today—to deport Venezuelans, alleging they belong to the Tren de Aragua gang, without due process. Federal courts have consistently ruled against the administration’s use of emergency powers, particularly concerning immigration and border security, yet officials have continued to push forward in ways that some perceive as ignoring or undermining the judiciary’s authority.
In Dr. Alawieh’s case, the Department of Homeland Security stated that she “openly admitted” to CBP officers her support for a Hezbollah leader and attended their funeral. “A visa is a privilege not a right—glorifying and supporting terrorists who kill Americans is grounds for visa issuance to be denied,” the statement said. “This is commonsense security.” The official White House account on X posted: “Bye-bye, Rasha” with a hand waving emoji. Alawieh was deported to Lebanon, despite the judge’s order on Friday that she remain in the U.S. for a court hearing on Monday.
Legal scholars caution that allowing such defiance to go unpunished could permanently weaken the judiciary’s ability to act as a check on executive power. “There is an accumulation of power in one place,” Wehle says. “That means Donald Trump becomes the law. The law is what he sees the law to be. He picks and chooses winners and losers.”
“The checks and balances are gone,” she adds.
The Trump Administration is actively working to portray both the deportations and its defiance of the courts as victories for the American people. Social media posts from administration officials and pro-Trump influencers have celebrated the deportations. showed a video of shackled men being led onto the planes, accompanied by Semisonic’s 1998 song “Closing Time.”
