Judge Presses DOJ Officials as Inquiry Circles Kristi Noem’s Role in Migrant Flights
A federal judge has ordered two Justice Department lawyers to testify in person as part of a criminal-contempt inquiry involving deportations signed off by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. A move that inches the case closer to potential criminal charges. According to court filings, the hearings will take place Dec. 15 and 16.
The case stems from mid-March, when the administration flew more than 100 Venezuelan migrants under the seldom-used wartime Alien Enemies Act to a prison in El Salvador despite a federal court’s order to pause those removals and turn any in-air deportation flights back.
In a new court filing, the Justice Department acknowledged that Noem made the final call to allow the transfers. She claimed she acted based on legal advice received from DOJ and Homeland Security attorneys.
But U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said Noem’s declaration provided only a bare outline of the decision that is too thin to determine whether the government intentionally defied his order. For now, he said, “a referral for prosecution … would be premature.”
Follow The Coffman Chronicle on NewsBreak for daily breaking political coverage.
To build a full factual record, including who said what, when and why Boasberg has subpoenaed the lawyers: former DOJ attorney and whistleblower Erez Reuveni (scheduled to testify Dec. 15) and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign (Dec. 16). Their testimony could clarify whether officials knowingly violated the injunction.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. The tension marks the latest flap in a broader legal challenge to how the administration used the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked wartime statute, to deport migrants without conventional due-process hearings.
What happens next depends on whether the live testimony reveals evidence of deliberate defiance of the court and if so, Boasberg could refer Noem for prosecution. If not, prosecutors may close the inquiry. Either way, the case underscores a growing showdown between the judiciary and the executive over the limits of deportation powers.