# ESSAY: Boasberg vs. Trump — the Alien Enemies Act and the Venezuelan detainees at CECOT > In March 2025, federal judge James Boasberg of Washington DC finds himself facing one of the most explosive situations of his career: he orders the turnaround of planes loaded with Venezuelans being deported to CECOT prison in El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act — a law dating from 1798, designed for wartime. The planes do not turn around. More than 137 Venezuelans land at - Author: Maxime Marquette - Publisher: MadMax (https://mad-max.co) - Section: Essay - Published: 2026-06-29 - Canonical URL: https://mad-max.co/en/article/essai-boasberg-contre-trump-l-alien-enemies-act-et-les-venezueliens-de-la-cecot ## Introduction: a judge facing an 18th-century wartime law ### Judge Boasberg and the impossible order In **March 2025**, federal judge **James Boasberg** of **Washington DC** finds himself facing one of the most explosive situations of his career: he orders the turnaround of planes loaded with **Venezuelans** being deported to **CECOT** prison in **El Salvador** under the **Alien Enemies Act** — a law dating from **1798**, designed for wartime. The planes do not turn around. More than **137 Venezuelans** land at **CECOT**. The judge describes these deportations as **"flagrant violations"** of the right to judicial review. The **Trump** administration appeals. This confrontation between a district judge and the most powerful federal government in the world crystallizes a fundamental question: can wartime laws from the **18th century** be invoked by a **21st-century** president to deport without trial immigrants labeled as enemies? Judge **Boasberg** answered no. The **Trump** administration said yes. And the **DC Circuit en banc** will have to decide on **September 29, 2026**. ### The Alien Enemies Act: a 228-year-old law The **Alien Enemies Act** of **1798** is one of the four laws of the **Alien and Sedition Acts** passed under President **John Adams**. It authorizes the president to apprehend, restrain, and deport nationals of an enemy nation in times of declared war or invasion. It was invoked during **World War I**, **World War II** (against German, Italian, and Japanese nationals) — and never otherwise in American history. **Trump** dusted it off in **March 2025** to designate the gang **Tren de Aragua** as an invasion force from **Venezuela** against the **United States**. This is not creative interpretation. It is a legal contortion: using a wartime law to deport presumed gang members in the absence of a formal declaration of war, a military invasion, or any other state of hostility recognized under international law. Judge **Boasberg** found that this application goes far beyond the intent of the drafters of the **1798** law. *Invoking a law from 1798 to deport people without trial in 2025 is either creative legal genius or absolute contempt for the rule of law. I lean strongly toward the second option. The American founders who drafted this law had declared wars between states in mind — not Venezuelan criminal gangs in American apartments.* ## CECOT: what we know about this prison ### A maximum-security mega-prison designed for total isolation **CECOT** — **Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo** — is a maximum-security prison inaugurated in **El Salvador** under President **Nayib Bukele** in **2023**. Built to hold up to **40,000** detainees, it is presented by the Salvadoran government as the central tool of its anti-gang policy. Thousands of presumed gang members were jailed without formal trial in the first years of its operation. Human rights organizations like **Amnesty International** and **Human Rights Watch** have documented extremely severe detention conditions and systematic violations of the right to a fair trial. The **Trump** administration's use of **CECOT** to house Venezuelans deported from the **United States** — in an arrangement with the **Bukele** government — is an unprecedented outsourcing of American immigrant detention. This is no longer merely deportation — it is the deliberate imprisonment in a foreign maximum-security prison, without trial, without proven formal charges. ### The 137 Venezuelans: who were they really? The **Trump** administration presented the **137 Venezuelans** deported to **CECOT** as confirmed members of the gang **Tren de Aragua**. Lawyers and families of several of them vigorously disputed this designation. Photos of **tattoos** — presented by the administration as proof of gang membership — were challenged by experts who noted that some tattoos had no documented link to **Tren de Aragua**. The fact that these **137 people** were deported without an individual hearing, without the ability to contest their gang member designation, is precisely what led Judge **Boasberg** to intervene. The question is not whether some of them were actually gang members — the question is whether the state can imprison people without giving them the opportunity to contest the charges. *Tattoos as proof of guilt. Deportations without individual hearings. Men locked up at CECOT without trial. If this procedure is acceptable, what isn't? The presumption of innocence is not a progressive luxury — it is the foundation of any judicial system worthy of the name. Invoking it here is not defending criminals. It is defending the law.* ## The Boasberg order and the administration's response ### An order ignored — and its consequences In **March 2025**, Judge **Boasberg** issued a **Temporary Restraining Order** ordering deportation planes to turn around. The planes did not turn around. The administration argued that the judge's **oral instructions** were "defective" and that proper procedure had not been followed. This is the type of argument that allows one to technically not comply with a judicial order while claiming to act legally. Judge **Boasberg** found **probable cause** for criminal contempt — criminal contempt of court — against the administration. He began conducting a contempt inquiry against Secretary of Homeland Security **Kristi Noem** and other officials. A panel of three **DC Circuit** judges suspended this inquiry in **April 2025**. On **June 22, 2026**, all **11 active judges** of the **DC Circuit** decided to reconsider this suspension en banc. ### The constitutional scope of criminal contempt The criminal contempt inquiry conducted by Judge **Boasberg** raises deep constitutional questions. **Criminal contempt** is a rare and serious sanction — it can theoretically result in the imprisonment of government officials for non-compliance with judicial orders. Applied to members of the presidential cabinet, it collides directly with theories of **executive immunity** and **executive sovereignty**. The question the **DC Circuit en banc** will have to answer in **September 2026** is fundamentally this: can a federal judge pursue a criminal contempt inquiry against executive officials who violated his orders in the context of a controversial immigration policy? The answer will have implications far beyond this specific case. *The question is not whether Kristi Noem should go to prison — I do not know the answer, and that is not the heart of the matter. The question is whether the government can ignore judicial orders and get away with it without consequences. If yes, courts are no longer checks and balances — they are suggestions. And a democracy without effective checks and balances is no longer a democracy.* ## The fate of the Venezuelans: an unexpected prisoner exchange ### Returned to Venezuela via an exchange In an unexpected development, the **137 Venezuelans** detained at **CECOT** were eventually sent back to **Venezuela** through a **prisoner exchange** negotiated in **July 2025** between the American, Salvadoran, and Venezuelan governments. This exchange — whose exact terms were not fully made public — ended the immediate situation for the directly affected individuals, but did not resolve the legal questions raised by their initial deportation. Judge **Boasberg** had ordered the administration to **"facilitate the return"** of these people or to give them access to judicial remedies in the **United States**. The exchange returned them to **Venezuela** — which formally satisfies part of the order (they are no longer at **CECOT**) but does not give them access to American judicial remedies. Whether the spirit of the order has been fulfilled is debatable. ### The effect on ongoing judicial proceedings The return of the **137 Venezuelans** to **Venezuela** raised the question of whether legal proceedings filed on their behalf could continue — a case may become **moot** if the plaintiffs no longer have a direct interest in the litigation. Judge **Boasberg**'s contempt inquiry and the **DC Circuit**'s en banc review are not rendered moot for all that: they address the administration's conduct during the initial deportations, independent of the subsequent fate of the deported individuals. The question of principle — can the administration ignore judicial orders regarding deportations by invoking procedural grounds? — remains entirely open. And it is that question the **DC Circuit en banc** will have to examine on **September 29, 2026**. *These people were returned to Venezuela. Not to the United States — to Venezuela, the country they were fleeing. The loop is grotesque: deported without trial to a Salvadoran prison, then exchanged to the country they had fled. If this constitutes a legal "victory" for the administration, I refuse to accept the definition of victory being offered.* ## The DC Circuit en banc: a decision expected in September 2026 ### What the en banc review means On **June 22, 2026**, all **11 active judges** of the **DC Circuit** decided to reconsider en banc the annulment of the contempt inquiry ordered by the three-judge panel in **April 2026**. This review is remarkable: it means the court's majority finds that the panel's decision — favorable to the administration — deserves to be revisited. The **en banc** is reserved for cases of particular importance or complexity, and its triggering sends a clear signal about the seriousness with which the court views the situation. More than **174 former federal judges** filed an **amicus brief** in support of resuming the contempt inquiry — an extraordinarily high number of judicial endorsements that speaks to the gravity with which the legal community views the violations of Judge **Boasberg**'s orders. ### The oral arguments of September 29, 2026 The oral arguments before the **DC Circuit en banc** are set for **September 29, 2026**. They will determine whether Judge **Boasberg**'s contempt inquiry can resume, and on what basis. The final decision is expected in the months following the arguments. It could open the way to sanctions against **Trump** administration officials for violating judicial orders — a precedent with no equivalent in recent American history. For defenders of the rule of law, these arguments represent one of the most important proceedings of the year **2026**. The question at the heart of the case — can the executive government ignore federal court orders? — is one of the most fundamental questions of American democracy. *174 former federal judges. These people devoted their careers to the rule of law. When they file en masse to say "what the administration did is serious," you have to listen. They are not political activists — they are legal professionals who have seen everything. And they say that this time, it is different.* ## The Alien Enemies Act in its broader context ### A law not invoked since 1948 The **Alien Enemies Act** had not been invoked since the end of **World War II**. Its use by **Trump** in **2025** is without modern precedent. It raises fundamental questions about the limits of presidential power: can the president, by simple proclamation, transform an internal security situation — the presence of a criminal gang — into an "invasion" under a wartime law? Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum have generally answered no. The precedents for use of the **Alien Enemies Act** involved declared wars or internationally recognized armed conflicts. Designating **Tren de Aragua** as an invasion force is a rhetorical construction, not a legal or military reality. And Judge **Boasberg** was the first court to say so formally. ### The implications for other groups and situations If **Trump**'s use of the **Alien Enemies Act** were definitively validated, the implications would be considerable. Other groups could be designated "enemies" without a formal declaration of war. Other countries could be targeted. The notion of "invasion" could be extended to other forms of non-military presence on American soil. The precedent would be available to any future president — Democrat or Republican. That is why this case goes beyond the question of the **137 Venezuelans**. It defines the limits of what an American president can do by invoking wartime powers in a situation that is not technically a war. It is a constitutional question of the first order. *This precedent worries me more than any other aspect of this case. If Trump can invoke the Alien Enemies Act against Tren de Aragua, a future president can invoke it against any group declared "enemy." This power, once established, does not disappear with the administration that created it. It waits for the next user.* ## Fundamental rights under the pressure of security urgency ### When security becomes an alibi The **Trump** administration justified applying the **Alien Enemies Act** through security urgency: **Tren de Aragua** was a hostile force, a national threat equivalent to an invasion. This war rhetoric allows one to short-circuit the usual constitutional protections. But courts refused to accept this equivalence without scrutiny. The **Supreme Court**, in its **May 2025** order, required reasonable notice and the opportunity to contest. ### Procedural guarantees as a bulwark What is at stake in the **Boasberg** case is precisely the question of minimum procedural guarantees. Even in wartime, even facing proven criminals, American law requires a process. You do not deport human beings to a foreign prison without giving them the opportunity to contest that decision before a judge. This principle is not a bureaucratic obstacle — it is the very definition of the rule of law. *Security urgency has always been the argument of governments that want to free themselves from legal constraints. The internment of Japanese-Americans in 1942 was justified by urgency. The Bush administration used the same logic after 9/11. Each time, history condemned these decisions. I wonder whether, in twenty years, we will look at the CECOT deportations the same way.* ## The institutional legacy of this judicial battle ### What this case reveals about the separation of powers The confrontation between Judge **Boasberg** and the **Trump** administration illustrates a fundamental tension in the American Constitution: who has the final word? The theoretical constitutional answer is simple — each branch has its domain, and courts interpret the law. The practical answer is more complex: courts have no army. Their only weapon is **criminal contempt**, and even then, other institutions must enforce it. ### The international resonance of an American decision What is unfolding at the **DC Circuit** does not concern only the **137 Venezuelans** deported in **March 2025**. It concerns the credibility of American rule of law on the world stage. Allied democracies are watching. Authoritarian regimes are watching too — for different reasons. If American courts cannot enforce their orders on the executive, the American democratic model loses part of its moral force abroad. *I am not writing this essay from an academic ivory tower. I write it because I believe democratic institutions deserve to be defended — not because they are perfect, but because the alternatives are worse. What Judge Boasberg is doing, stubbornly, in the face of an administration that openly mocks him, is an act of institutional resistance that history should honor.* ## Conclusion: an essay on the limits of power ### What Judge Boasberg represents In this essay, I wanted to explore a question larger than the facts themselves: what happens when the executive power decides that court orders are obstacles to circumvent rather than laws to follow? Judge **Boasberg** represents the institutional answer to that question: courts do not go silent. They inquire, they order, they decide. And when their orders are ignored, they open contempt inquiries. ### What September 29 will tell us The oral arguments of **September 29, 2026** before the **DC Circuit en banc** will be a moment of truth. If the court allows the contempt inquiry to resume, it signals that American courts can still impose consequences on an executive that violates their orders. If it prohibits it, the opposite is true. One of these signals will strengthen democracy. The other will weaken it. And America, and the world with it, will be watching. *I close this essay with a personal note: I do not know what the DC Circuit will decide on September 29. But I know that the question being asked — must the government obey the courts? — is the most important political and legal question of our time. And that the answer given in 2026 will shape the decades to come.* **By Maxime Marquette, columnist** ## Columnist's transparency note ### Editorial stance I am not a journalist but a **columnist and analyst**. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies. I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. **I claim analytical clarity**, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events. ### Method and sources This text keeps the basic distinction between **verified facts and interpretive analysis**. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under **Sources**, never here. **Primary source families** used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies. **Secondary source families**: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations. When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under **Sources**. ### Nature of the analysis The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a **critical, contextual synthesis** based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted. My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors. This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text. ## Sources ### Primary sources - [ABC News — Full appeals court to hear arguments on contempt inquiry, CECOT — June 22, 2026](https://abcnews.com/US/full-appeals-court-hear-arguments-contempt-inquiry-cecot/story?id=134112094) - [Bloomberg — Fight over Noem contempt hearing to be reheard by appeals court — June 22, 2026](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-06-22/fight-over-noem-contempt-hearing-to-be-reheard-by-appeals-court) - [Lawfare Media — The trials of the Trump administration — June 22, 2026](https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/lawfare-daily--the-trials-of-the-trump-administration--june-22) ### Secondary sources - [Joyce Vance — Boasberg contempt proceedings](https://joycevance.substack.com/p/boasberg-contempt-proceedings) - [Verdict News — DC Circuit grants en banc rehearing in In re Donald J. Trump](https://verdict.news/circuit/d-c-circuit-grants-en-banc-rehearing-in-in-re-donald-j-trump-019ef1cd) - [El Balad — Boasberg orders the return of the Venezuelans — June 2026](https://www.el-balad.com/6850336) --- Source: Maxime Marquette, MadMax. When citing, name the author and link https://mad-max.co/en/article/essai-boasberg-contre-trump-l-alien-enemies-act-et-les-venezueliens-de-la-cecot