100 days of injunctions, trials and ‘Teflon Don’: Trump second term meets its biggest tests in court

President Donald Trump has spent the first 100 days of his second White House term signing a flurry of executive orders aimed at delivering on his policy priorities: slashing government spending, cracking down on illegal immigration and eliminating many diversity and equity initiatives enacted under the Biden administration.

The more than 150 executive orders Trump has signed far outpace those of his predecessors. But they have also triggered a torrent of lawsuits seeking to block or pause his actions, teeing up a high-stakes showdown over how far Trump can push his Article II powers before the courts can or should intervene. 

It’s a looming constitutional clash spinning like a top through the federal courts; a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it set of hearings and appeals and emergency orders that deal with weighty issues of due process and First Amendment protections guaranteed by the Constitution. 

Trump’s critics argue the fast-paced strategy is meant to confuse and overwhelm his opponents. His supporters counter that it allows him to strike with maximum precision and sidestep a clunky, slow-moving Congress as the president pursues his top priorities.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ASKS SUPREME COURT TO REVIEW EL SALVADOR DEPORTATION FLIGHT CASE

In his first 100 days, administration lawyers have gone to bat in courtrooms across the country to defend Trump's early executive orders and halt a wave of lawsuits and emergency restraining orders aimed at blocking them. 

Trump, meanwhile, has steadfastly maintained that he would "never defy" the Supreme Court as recently as in an interview last week. 

"I'm a big believer in the Supreme Court and have a lot of respect for the justices," Trump told Time Magazine.  

Critics say he already has.

"The second Trump administration has taken the guardrails off of the norms that historically governed the rule of law and is undertaking steps to enhance the perceived power of the executive branch to the detriment of the two other co-equal branches," Mark Zaid, an attorney who has gone toe-to-toe with the Trump administration in several court cases this year, told Fox News Digitial.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

"These actions threaten the fundamental notion of our democracy, particularly as the Administration seeks to eliminate due process protections in a quest for power."

The biggest fights so far have centered around the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to deport certain migrants to El Salvador. Another major case to watch will be challenges to Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. 

Two separate federal judges, in D.C. and Maryland, have suggested they could move to begin possible contempt proceedings against some Trump officials for refusing to comply with their orders.

In one case, a judge issued a scathing rebuke against Trump officials for failing to return a Maryland resident and alleged gang member who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador this year. Separately, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said there was probable cause to find Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for defying his order to return deportation flights to El Salvador on March 15.

The Trump administration has fought back, questioning the authority of lower courts to stop his agenda. The Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on a challenge to some of the nationwide injunctions, beginning with a birthright citizenship case in early May.

Meanwhile, White House officials have railed against the "activist" judges who they say have overstepped and are acting with a political agenda to block Trump's policies. They’ve blasted judges for pausing Trump’s transgender military ban, reinstating USAID programs and blocking Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal offices.

Some congressional allies have threatened impeachment against judges who defy Trump, but so far Congress has not advanced any impeachment articles.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt declined this week to rule out the arrest of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices.

Asked at a press briefing about the hypothetical on Monday, Leavitt referred the matter to the Justice Department but said a judge in New Mexico was arrested in "a clear-cut case of obstruction."

"And so anyone who is breaking the law or obstructing federal law enforcement officials from doing their jobs is putting themselves at risk of being prosecuted, absolutely," she said.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor and Fox News contributor, told Fox News Digital that he sees Trump's early actions as getting ahead of the 2026 primaries and moving with maximum force to implement his agenda.

Trump "knows that he has no alternative but to push ahead on all fronts if he is going to make meaningful progress on his promised reforms," Turley told Fox News. 

"The midterm elections are looming in 2026. If the Democrats retake the House, he knows that he can expect investigations, impeachments and obstruction. That means that he has to expedite these cases and establish his lines of authority in areas ranging from migration to the markets."

Senator joins group of far-left lawmakers who think Trump has — again — committed impeachable offenses

Sen. John Ossoff of Georgia has become the latest Democrat in Congress to signal that President Donald Trump deserves to be impeached, even though he has only been in the White House this term for less than 100 days. 

During a town hall Friday in Cobb County, Georgia, Ossoff took questions from the audience, including from a fired-up local mother who questioned Ossoff about why there has not been a more concerted effort to impeach Trump. 

"Why are there no calls for impeachment?" Ossoff was asked. "Do something more!"

‘BIDEN EFFECT’ HITS THE SENATE: WAVE OF RETIREMENTS CLEARS PATH FOR YOUNGER DEMS

Ossoff told the woman at the top of his response that "there is no doubt" Trump has exceeded the standard for impeachment.

"I saw just 48 hours ago, [Trump] is granting audiences to people who buy his meme coin," Ossoff said. "There is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense. And the reality is that that's just one of many [examples] — defying a federal court order, for example. So, I agree with you."

Ossoff's remarks make him the latest Democratic lawmaker in Congress who has either explicitly called for Trump's impeachment or signaled their willingness to support such a move just 100 days into his presidency. While most Democrats have been willing to publicly admit the country is facing a constitutional crisis under Trump, most of them have refrained from going so far as to use the "I" word. 

DEMS FUME OVER ‘DUE PROCESS’ FOR ABREGO GARCIA DESPITE LONG HISTORY OF PARTY BUCKING THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE

Some though, such as progressive Sen. Al Green, D-Texas, have not shied away from supporting calls for impeachment. He was the first congressional lawmaker to call for it just weeks into the president's second term. Green's calls have been supported by other Democrats, such as Reps. Suzanne Bonamici and Maxine Dexter of Oregon; Sam Liccardo and Maxine Waters of California; Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; Shri Thanedar of Michigan; and Hank Johnson of Georgia, all of whom have gone publicly on the record regarding their support, according to NBC News. 

"Right now, it's 218 to 215, so if you can find me two Republicans, I'll go to work tomorrow," Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who led impeachment efforts against Trump during his first term, told a reporter when asked about the matter.

Trent England, a presidential elections expert and founder of the nonprofit Save Our States, bashed Democratic lawmakers for "claiming to be all about democracy," but when they don't get what they want, "suddenly democracy is not what they're all about."

"It really undercuts Democrats' message about elections when as soon as they get an election result they don't like, they're out challenging it through impeachment. Especially when Democrats claimed after 2016 that part of their issue with Trump was that he only won the Electoral College," England added. "Well, now he's won a resounding popular vote, in addition to winning the Electoral College. And, yet, they're still out there trying to impeach him at the very beginning of his administration."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: IMPEACHAPALOOZA IS HERE TO STAY

England also opined that the calls for impeachment were an easy way for Democrats to help boost their fundraising efforts. 

"Efforts like this show how a lot of members of Congress are really operating as personal fundraising machines, as opposed to legislators," England said. "They're not trying to get things done. They know that using platforms like Act Blue, they can fly the impeachment flag and raise a lot of money from left-wing donors without ever believing that any of this is going to have any effect."

The first-term Democratic senator is facing re-election later this year, as his term ends early next year. Ossoff's office declined to comment for this story. 

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Tim Scott said Ossoff's push for impeachment illustrates "the desperation of his re-election campaign." 

"Not even 100 days into President Donald J. Trump's terms, and Ossoff is already pushing impeachment," Scott said. "His obsession makes clear just how out of touch he is with Georgia voters. The desperation in his re-election campaign is already showing."

GOP hits back after judges demand Trump allies be condemned for targeting judiciary

FIRST ON FOX: The GOP lawmaker leading a collective response to more than 100 judges and attorneys who demanded condemnation of Trump allies said Tuesday she and her delegation won't be "pushed around" amid ongoing attacks on left-wing judges.

Wyoming’s congressional delegation responded to dozens of Cowboy State jurists, including a former governor who issued an open condemnation of lawmakers’ failure to defend judges under fire from conservatives over sweeping nationwide injunctions hindering President Donald Trump’s foreign policy and homeland security actions.

The response, led by Sen. Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyo., rejected the basis on which the jurists were calling for the state’s Republicans to vociferously intervene in support of what the White House describes as rogue judges, citing the Founding Fathers’ words.

"In Federalist [Paper] 78…  Alexander Hamilton wrote that "the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous" and that judges "have neither force nor will," the letter states. 

WYOMING SHERIFF'S BOLD BILLBOARD RECRUITING DENVER OFFICERS OUT OF LIBERAL CITY CREATES STIR

"In recent years, we have become increasingly concerned with how our country has strayed from this Hamiltonian aspiration. We have seen judges across the political spectrum assume both "force" and "will" — Many Americans are worried judges are misusing their independence by imposing policy preferences on our country — all with no accountability."

They also noted Georgetown Law professor Brad Snyder "said it best" – "The Court does not have the last word on the Constitution."

‘TRAITOR’ LIZ CHENEY WALLOPED BY WYOMING VOTERS FOR HARRIS ENDORSEMENT, BREAK FROM GOP

In comments to Fox News Digital, Lummis said Americans elected Trump and did not select "liberal judges."

"I represent the people of Wyoming, and they have made it clear that they support President Trump’s agenda and want a government where their elected representatives make the laws," she said.

"Our delegation stands with President Trump and won’t be pushed around by far-left judicial activists who wish to further divide our country."

The jurists objecting to the Republicans’ silence cited calls to reject disinformation after the Jan. 6 Capitol riot and similarly recounted critiques from administration allies of judges, like James Boasberg, who have issued nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s homeland security measures.

In a missive entitled "The Rule of Law Matters," they cited more virulent critiques of such judges, as well as a conservative op-ed decrying that "if impeachment is the remedy for every adverse judicial ruling, we wouldn’t have a judiciary left."

"These attacks are part of a growing effort to discredit, not just judges, but seemingly the American Rule of Law as we know it," the original letter states. It was signed by about 100 jurists, including former Wyoming Democratic Gov. Michael Sullivan, former President Bill Clinton’s Irish ambassador.

"Recent executive orders targeting prominent national law firms disfavored by the administration with severe retribution… has, as night follows day, resulted in yet more incendiary social media postings attacking the judiciary and openly encouraging the executive branch to disobey court orders."

In their response to the scores of jurists, Lummis, Sen. John Barrasso and Rep. Harriet Hageman condemned the fact the direct letter had also been distributed to the media and that the lawmakers would have collectively appreciated direct discussion.

"We are disappointed you failed to express your concerns with us directly before rushing to publish your letter," they wrote.

"A robust discussion about addressing the challenges and concerns facing our nation would be more beneficial than attempting to score political points through the press."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The complainants wrote that while there is populist sentiment for "radical change," the "growing reckless disdain for the independence and security of our judiciary must be resisted by anyone sworn to uphold our Constitution.

"That includes us, and it certainly includes you."

The lawmakers stood firm, however, on the idea that they are acting responsibly and within their legislative role.

They cited their co-sponsorship of a bill that would ban most nationwide injunctions effecting change "across the ideological spectrum," and not just those against Trump’s actions.

Legislation highlighted by the lawmakers cited both conservative and liberal Supreme Court justices issuing criticisms of such nationwide injunctions.

"The Supreme Court has consistently noted that political questions should be kept at arm’s length by the judiciary," they wrote, as a Senate Judiciary Committee statement on the Judicial Relief Clarification Act quoted reservations from both Justices Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan.

Other jurists have, however, echoed Trump's criticisms, including George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, who told Fox News' "The Ingraham Angle" that judges must remember they've been "appointed, not anointed."

‘Watermelon head’: Trump trolls Democratic Sen Schiff

Sen. Adam Schiff fired back late Tuesday after President Donald Trump mocked the California Democrat during a black-tie Republican dinner in Washington, D.C.

"The President of the United States seems oddly focused on me," Schiff posted after footage of Trump's jokes made the rounds.

"Shouldn't he be focused on the economy he's crashing?" he wrote.

During the event hosted by the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) – the House Republicans' campaign arm – Trump wove in a few insults about the Boston-born Angeleno's appearance into a verbal indictment of his role in the 2016 Russia collusion investigation.

KASH PATEL ENRAGES ADAM SCHIFF IN CLINTONIAN BATTLE OVER THE WORD ‘WE’

"Adam ‘Schifty’ Schiff – can you believe this guy?" Trump said. "He's got the smallest neck I've ever seen – and the biggest head: We call him Watermelon-Head." Trump went on to ruminate about how Schiff's "big fat face" could "stand on a neck" the size of the president's finger. 

"It's the weirdest thing – it's a mystery; no one can understand it."

Trump went on to call Schiff "one of the most dishonest human beings I've ever seen," and wondered aloud how people like Schiff could be able to run for office.

FLASHBACK: SCHIFF, WHO REPEATEDLY CLAIMED EVIDENCE OF RUSSIAN COLLUSION, DENOUNCES DURHAM REPORT AS ‘FLAWED’

"He was in charge of the fake witch hunt – with 'Russia, Russia, Russia' – it was a made-up story," he said, playing off the "Brady Bunch" line "Marsha, Marsha, Marsha."

In 2020, Schiff managed the House's impeachment probe into Trump, leading off his opening remarks that January by comparing former Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton's 1792 warning to then-President George Washington about future American leaders who would rise to the executive "despotic in [their] ordinary demeanor."

"When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits… known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the nonsense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind," Schiff said at the time.

Since then, he and Trump have often traded criticisms, with Trump also referring to him in the past as a "structural marvel," with an appearance like a "finger on a basketball."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

In October, Trump compared Schiff to the "enemy from within" and called him a "sleazebag" on FOX Business before lamenting that the Democrat would likely defeat former MLB star Steve Garvey for California's open U.S. Senate seat.

For his part, Schiff has also clapped back at Republicans for their criticisms – responding in July to a report that now-Vice President JD Vance had lamented campaign name-calling after Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz called the GOP ticket "weird."

"Shifty Schiff, pencil neck and watermelon head, would like a word, JD," Schiff responded at the time on Facebook.

Fox News Digital reached out to Schiff for additional comment but did not immediately hear back.

Boasberg contempt showdown looms after Supreme Court hands Trump immigration win

A federal judge is weighing whether to hold Trump administration officials in civil contempt after they defied a court order blocking deportation flights last month – even as the Supreme Court on Monday handed the administration a temporary legal victory, allowing it to resume use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants.

President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda is colliding with the federal judiciary as his administration races to fulfill a central campaign promise: mass deportations. The aggressive pace – which has included the removal of alleged members of violent transnational gangs – has triggered a wave of legal challenges from critics who claim the administration is unlawfully ejecting migrants from the country.

The high court’s 5–4 decision, which Trump praised on X as a "great day for justice in America," lifted a lower court’s injunction and allows deportations to resume for now, though with added due process protections. The unsigned, four-page ruling focused narrowly on the lower court’s order and permits the administration to invoke the wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to expedite removals. 

However, the ruling does little to halt the escalating feud between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has signaled he may hold administration officials in contempt for defying his order last month to ground deportation flights. Boasberg is set to preside over a hearing Tuesday to address the administration’s use of the state secrets privilege to block the court from accessing information about the flights. It will mark the judge’s first opportunity to respond since the Supreme Court sided with Trump.

JUDGE BOASBERG POISED TO HOLD TRUMP ADMIN IN CONTEMPT, TAKES DOWN NAMES OF DHS OFFICIALS: 'PRETTY SKETCHY'

Though Trump and his allies celebrated the Supreme Court’s intervention, the decision offers only a narrow and potentially short-lived reprieve.

The ruling requires the administration to provide detainees slated for removal with proper notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportation in court. However, the justices said those legal challenges must be filed in Texas – not in Washington, D.C. – a jurisdictional shift that injects fresh uncertainty into the lower court proceedings. The decision drew a scathing dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who warned that the ruling would make it significantly harder for individuals to contest their removals on a case-by-case basis.

"We, as a Nation and a court of law, should be better than this," she said.  

Boasberg blocked the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act for a 14-day period last month to allow the court time to review the case on its merits. The order drew scathing criticism from Trump, who labeled Boasberg an "activist judge" and called for his impeachment – prompting a rare warning from Chief Justice John Roberts.

Boasberg has said he will decide as early as this week whether to pursue civil contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for defying his order.

Three planes carrying 261 migrants – including more than 100 individuals slated for removal solely under the Alien Enemies Act – were flown to El Salvador last month from the U.S., around the same time Boasberg issued an emergency order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan nationals for 14 days.

Boasberg also issued a bench ruling ordering that all migrant flights be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. The administration did not comply, and hours later, the planes arrived in El Salvador.

At a show-cause hearing last week, Boasberg instructed Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign to determine who in the administration knew about the restraining order and when. He also demanded to know who made the decision not to comply, saying that information could be relevant if he moves forward with contempt proceedings.

Boasberg contested Ensign's suggestion that the administration may not have violated the emergency restraining order.

"It seems to me there is a fair likelihood that that is not correct," Boasberg told Ensign. "In fact, the government acted in bad faith throughout that day," he added.

SUPREME COURT GRANTS TRUMP REQUEST TO LIFT STAY HALTING VENEZUELAN DEPORTATIONS

Boasberg asked follow-up questions about agency affiliation, titles and the spelling of officials' names – suggesting he would be examining their roles in the case very closely as he weighed whether there was probable cause to move on civil contempt. Ensign repeatedly told the court he did not know and was not privy to the information himself. "I made diligent efforts to obtain that information," he told Boasberg.

The Trump administration’s repeated failure to meet court deadlines may give Boasberg grounds to proceed with civil contempt proceedings, even if jurisdictional questions limit his ability to rule on the plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

The Supreme Court has affirmed that federal judges have the authority to compel parties to act and hold them accountable for defying court orders in both civil and criminal cases.

The potential contempt proceedings come amid soaring tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary, as Trump administration officials clash with federal judges overseeing a flood of lawsuits and emergency requests to halt administration actions. While contempt findings against executive officials are rare, they are not without precedent.

 APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

In civil cases, a judge will often reiterate the original order and set clear steps and deadlines for the party to demonstrate compliance. If those deadlines are missed, the court can take further action to compel obedience – consistent with the basic principle that "all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly."

Boasberg sharply criticized Trump officials for failing to comply with his bench order requiring deportation flights to return to the U.S. and for refusing to provide basic information about the individuals who were removed. During last week’s hearing, it became clear the administration had not been withholding classified materials, as previously implied — a revelation that appeared to undercut its national security justification and drew further frustration from the judge. He also noted that the administration may have violated multiple court deadlines, including one that allowed sensitive information to be filed under seal.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? Boasberg asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

The judge, visibly frustrated, pressed further. "You standing here have no idea who made the decision not to bring the planes back or have the passengers not be disembarked upon arrival?" He then continued to question Ensign about the names, locations, and agencies of the individuals involved in the removals.

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and could survive a court challenge, I can't believe you ever would have operated in the way you did," Boasberg said. 

Now comes Tuesday’s pivotal hearing, as Boasberg weighs whether the administration’s national security claims are justified or merely an attempt to shield misconduct from judicial scrutiny.

Judge Boasberg poised to hold Trump admin in contempt, takes down names of DHS officials: ‘Pretty sketchy’

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Thursday grilled Trump administration lawyers over whether they defied a court order blocking deportations under a wartime immigration law — a potential step toward holding the administration in contempt.

At issue is the administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. Boasberg pressed Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign on why the government appeared to ignore an emergency injunction last month halting those deportations.

The administration has appealed the underlying case to the Supreme Court. But for now, Boasberg is weighing whether there is probable cause to move forward with contempt proceedings — a question that remained open after a tense exchange in court.

Boasberg said he would issue a decision as early as next week on how to proceed if he finds grounds to hold the administration in contempt.

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

During the hearing, Ensign was repeatedly questioned about who in the Trump administration had information about the flights and when the three deportation flights left U.S. soil for El Salvador. At least 261 migrants were deported that day, including more than 100 Venezuelan nationals who were subject to removal "solely on the basis" of the law temporarily blocked by the court.

"You maintain that the government was in full compliance with the court’s order on March 15, correct?" Boasberg asked Ensign. 

Ensign said yes, to which the judge responded: "It seems to me the government acted in bad faith that day." 

"If you really believed everything you did that day was legal and would survive a court challenge, you would not have operated the way that you did," Boasberg said.  

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

He repeatedly questioned Ensign about his knowledge of the flights and whether any related materials were classified, which could have triggered state secrets protections.

Government lawyers have refused to share information in court about the deportation flights, and whether the plane (or planes) of migrants knowingly departed U.S. soil after the judge ordered them not to do so, citing national security protections. 

But according to Ensign, that may not have been an issue. He told Boasberg the flight information likely wasn’t classified, prompting the judge to wonder aloud why it hadn’t been shared with him in an ex parte setting.

"Can you think of one instance" where the state secrets privilege was invoked using unclassified info? he asked Ensign, who struggled to respond.

"Pretty sketchy," Boasberg said aloud in response.

Another focus of Thursday’s hearing was timing — both when President Donald Trump signed the proclamation authorizing use of the Alien Enemies Act, and when federal agents began loading planes with migrants bound for El Salvador.

Boasberg noted that the Trump administration began loading the planes the morning of March 15, hours before the flights left the U.S.

"So then it’s not crazy to infer there was prior knowledge and actions ahead of the Saturday night deportations?" he asked Ensign.

The judge pressed the lawyer over the names, locations and agencies of individuals who were privy to the removals, as well as internal conversations with other administration officials who may have been listening in to the court proceedings.

"Who did you tell about my order?" Boasberg asked. "Once the hearing was done, who did you tell?"

Ensign says he relayed the information to Department of Homeland Security contacts and State Department officials, among others.

He listed the names of the individuals, at Boasberg's request, which the judge then carefully transcribed onto a pad of paper, interjecting at times to clarify the spelling or ask for their job titles.

The hearing is the latest in a flurry of legal battles over the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. It follows Boasberg’s order requiring officials to explain why they failed to comply with his directive to return the deportation flights — and whether they knowingly defied the court.

Boasberg told both sides he would see them again next week for arguments on the plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction motion, set for Tuesday.

The hearing also marks the latest clash between Trump and Boasberg, whom the president has publicly denounced as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. 

Trump faces Judge Boasberg over migrant deportation flights defying court order

A federal judge will hear from government lawyers Thursday to determine whether the Trump administration defied court orders when it deported hundreds of migrants to El Salvador last month.

The hearing marks the latest clash between President Donald Trump and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who Trump has publicly attacked as an "activist" judge and called for his impeachment. At issue is whether the administration knowingly violated Boasberg’s emergency order, which temporarily blocked the deportations and required that any individuals removed under a centuries-old immigration law be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil. Flights carrying migrants, including those deported under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, still landed in El Salvador that same night.

"Oopsie…" El Salvador's president, Nayib Bukele, wrote on X after they landed in his country. "Too late."

Boasberg, who issued the emergency orders at the center of the controversial and complex case, has said he intends to find out whether the administration knowingly violated them, and who, if anyone, should be held accountable.

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

"The government isn’t being forthcoming," Boasberg told Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign during an earlier hearing. "But I will get to the bottom of whether they complied with my order, who violated it and what the consequences will be."

At Thursday's hearing, Boasberg is expected to revisit many of the same questions he raised earlier, including how many planes left the U.S. carrying individuals deported "solely on the basis" of the Alien Enemies Act. Other questions include how many individuals were on each plane and what time and from which location each plane took off. 

Although the administration has already appealed the case twice – first to the D.C. Circuit, which upheld Boasberg’s order, and then to the Supreme Court – the judge is still pressing for answers. Thursday’s hearing is part of his effort to determine whether the government defied the court when it carried out the deportation flights.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The Alien Enemies Act, passed in 1798, has been used only three times in American history – during the War of 1812 and the two world wars – making its modern application by the Trump administration a rare legal maneuver.

Trump officials have argued invoking the law is necessary to expel dangerous individuals, including alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang, who were flown to El Salvador under the administration’s new deportation policy.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs have pushed back on the administration’s use of the 1798 law, calling its use during peacetime "unprecedented."

In a brief filed to the Supreme Court earlier this week, plaintiffs argued the law permits immediate deportations only in cases of a "declared war" or an "invasion or predatory incursion" by a foreign nation, conditions they say don’t apply to the Venezuelan nationals targeted for removal.

Government lawyers have declined to disclose key details about the deportation flights, including whether any planes departed after Boasberg’s order, citing national security protections.

Boasberg had previously warned the administration of consequences if it violated his order and criticized earlier filings as "woefully insufficient," noting the government also refused his offer to submit information under seal.

APPEALS COURT BLOCKS TRUMP ADMIN'S DEPORTATION FLIGHTS IN ALIEN ENEMIES ACT IMMIGRATION SUIT

The case has become a political flash point over the balance of power between the courts and the executive branch. Trump allies dismiss much of the judiciary’s involvement as the work of "activist" judges seeking to rein in the president and overstep their constitutional role.

Trump's demand for Boasberg to be impeached prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in a statement. "The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The White House has kept up its criticism of the lower courts, with press secretary Karoline Leavitt last month accusing judges of overstepping their bounds and infringing on the president’s authority.

"The administration will move quickly to pursue Supreme Court review, defend the Constitution, and protect the American people," Leavitt said in a statement.

EXCLUSIVE: Emerging GOP leader backing Trump’s use of Alien Enemies Act at Supreme Court

EXCLUSIVE – Freshman Congressman Brandon Gill, R-Texas, is teaming with pro-MAGA law firm America First Legal to file an amicus brief to the Supreme Court backing President Donald Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrant gang members. 

Gill, an outspoken conservative, was behind the effort to impeach the activist judge who halted the Trump administration's deportation of members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua – a violent criminal group known by its acronym TdA.

The brief was filed to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, just days after acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris petitioned the court to lift a temporary restraining order inhibiting the administration from carrying out its deportation agenda.

In their brief, America First and Gill argue the president has "absolute authority" under the Alien Enemies Act to determine when an invasion has occurred, and that this decision is "not judicially reviewable."

RED STATE MOVES TO DEFUND COUNTY AFTER LEADER VOWS TO ‘INTERFERE AND INTERRUPT’ ICE DEPORTATIONS

The brief argues that "the evidence is that TdA has invaded the United States at the direction of the Venezuelan government and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against American citizens." 

In a statement to Fox News Digital, America First senior counsel James Rogers said, "The notion that a single unelected judge may take it upon himself to micromanage the defense of our nation is an unprecedented and complete corruption of the separation of powers, which is a bedrock feature of our Republic."

"AFL is proud to join with Rep. Brandon Gill to stand up for the rule of law and to protect our American citizens," said Rogers. 

"The evidence is that TdA is tied to the Government of Venezuela; members of this violent gang clearly qualify as invading aliens under the Alien Enemies Act," he added. "This law was passed more than 226 years ago, and courts have always held that they lack the power to interfere with the President’s authority as Commander in Chief to decide when to invoke the Act and expel aliens under its terms."

DISTURBING CONTENT WARNING: ILLEGAL ACCUSED OF KILLING GEORGIA GRANDMOTHER FACES NEW DISTURBING CHARGES

"No plaintiff is entitled to use the courts to frustrate the president's exercise of clear constitutional authority," added America First Vice President Dan Epstein.

"The Biden administration’s failures depict clear reasons why the United States must fight this visceral threat to American self-government and the rule of law," he went on, adding, "The president declared that the United States is under invasion. The president has the power to make such a determination."

This comes after a 2-1 decision by a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a ruling by D.C. federal Judge James Boasberg, a Biden appointee, further blocking the Trump administration's immigration enforcement plans. 

At issue is the Trump administration's authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 wartime law, to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of Tren de Aragua, which was designated a foreign terrorist organization by the Trump State Department.

BLUE STATE SANCTUARY LAWS ENABLED ILLEGAL 'ABOLISH ICE' ACTIVIST TO EVADE CAPTURE, SAYS LOCAL DA

Trump issued an executive order on March 15 titled "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren De Aragua." In the order, Trump stated that TdA is sponsored by Venezuelan socialist dictator Nicolás Maduro with the goal of "destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States."

In response, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order immediately blocking the Trump administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals. In his ruling, Boasberg cited the need to better consider the merits of the case, prompting the administration to file an emergency request for the U.S. appeals court to intervene. 

CLICK HERE FOR MORE IMMIGRATION COVERAGE

The Trump administration’s appeal described the restraining order as a "massive, unauthorized imposition on the Executive’s authority to remove dangerous aliens who pose threats to the American people." 

SAN DIEGO BORDER PATROL CHIEF SAYS CALLING LOW CROSSING NUMBERS A 'DRAMATIC CHANGE' IS AN 'UNDERSTATEMENT'

In the administration’s petition to the Supreme Court, Harris said this case "presents fundamental questions about who decides how to conduct sensitive national-security-related operations in this country – the president, through Article II, or the judiciary, through TROs [temporary restraining orders]."

She said the Constitution "supplies a clear answer: the president," adding, "The republic cannot afford a different choice."

House Republicans to go to war with ‘rogue judges’ blocking Trump’s agenda: Here’s their plan

House Republicans are going all out this week to signal their support for the Trump administration amid multiple legal standoffs over White House policy.

A bill to limit U.S. district court judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions sailed through the House Rules Committee – the last gatekeeper for bills before a chamber-wide vote – in a party-line vote Monday evening, as expected.

On Tuesday morning, meanwhile, two high-profile panels on the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing at 10 a.m. ET on "judicial overreach and constitutional limits on the federal courts."

"Clearly, our members are as angered as President Trump about some of these rogue judges," House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., the No. 2 House Republican, told Fox News Digital in a brief interview. "So we're doing a number of things."

WHO IS JAMES BOASBERG, THE US JUDGE AT THE CENTER OF TRUMP'S DEPORTATION EFFORTS?

The hearing will be held by the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Constitution, led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and its subcommittee on courts, led by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Notably, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., is expected to testify, as is a woman described as a victim of criminal activity perpetrated by the terrorist organization Tren de Aragua in Aurora, Colorado.

Her appearance is likely linked to the ongoing legal showdown between the Trump administration and U.S. District Judge James Boasberg after he issued an emergency 14-day pause on the White House’s deportation flights of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador.

"We share the president's concern that you've got some judges that have overstepped their boundaries," Scalise said. "I mean, you have a plane flying with hardened criminals ... and Judge Boasberg orders the plane to turn around in mid-flight … and bring hardened criminals back to America who were already here illegally. That's clearly judicial activism and a judge trying to become the executive. That's not his role."

Issa is also spearheading the No Rogue Rulings Act (NORRA Act) to get a House-wide vote this week, which would limit the ability of Boasberg and other district court judges from issuing rulings that affect Trump policies across the country, beyond their direct jurisdiction.

That legislation is likely to pass with little if any Republican dissent. Two people familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital this month that Capitol Hill aides were told Trump "likes" the bill.

House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., the No. 3 House Republican, also made clear leadership is united behind this week’s strategy.

"Judges cannot act as pseudo-legislators to advance their political agenda; that’s not how our government works," Emmer told Fox News Digital exclusively in a written statement. "I’m grateful for Chairman Jordan and Congressman Issa’s leadership in House Republicans’ efforts to ensure impartiality on the bench."

'WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT': US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

But it’s clear there’s an appetite among Republican judiciary hawks and conservatives to go further.

Scalise would not go into specifics but vowed, "Everything's being looked at, and all options are on the table."

Democrats are vowing to push back, with Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, accusing Trump of using judges as "scapegoats" for his policy setbacks.

"This week's efforts to distract from Trump’s serial violations of the Spending Clause, the separation of powers, the Birthright Citizenship Clause, Equal Protection, the First Amendment freedom of speech, Fifth Amendment Due Process and Sixth Amendment right to counsel will include a House hearing made for Trump’s viewing pleasure and a vote on a Republican bill to ban nationwide injunctions," Raskin told Fox News Digital.

"As my colleagues embark on this embarrassing diversion, Judiciary Democrats will remind them at every turn: it's not the courts' fault that Trump keeps losing these cases. No amount of finger pointing will shift responsibility from this rogue president who keeps deliberately trashing the Constitution and violating the rights and freedoms of the people of the United States."

There have been over a dozen injunctions levied against various Trump policies across the country, from birthright citizenship reform to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., met privately with Republican judiciary committee members last week for what sources called a "brainstorming" session.

Ideas raised by lawmakers included a fast-tracked appeals process, wielding Congress’ spending power over the judiciary, and limiting the ability to "judge shop."

And some conservatives are eager to target specific judges they believe are abusing their power via the impeachment process, but House Republican leaders are wary of that route and believe it to be less effective than other legislative avenues.

Conservatives could still force Johnson’s hand by filing a "privileged" impeachment resolution, meaning the House would have to at least hold a procedural vote on the measure within two legislative days.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Fox News Digital is not aware of any current plans to do so, and Johnson assured Republicans at their closed-door meeting last week that he was in contact with the White House every step of the way.

Trump’s GOP Senate allies are rolling out their own strategy to push back on activist judges in the coming days, with the Senate Judiciary Committee teeing up a similar hearing to the House’s Tuesday event.

Trump announces plan to chop down magnolia tree purportedly planted by Andrew Jackson: ‘Must come to an end’

President Donald Trump announced plans to chop down a tree that was said to have been planted by former President Andrew Jackson.

In a Truth Social post on Sunday, Trump said that he was working with "the wonderful people at the National Park Service" to make "tremendous enhancements to the White House, thereby preserving and protecting History!"

"One of the interesting dilemmas is a tree planted many years ago by the Legendary President and General, Andrew Jackson," Trump described. "It is a Southern Magnolia, that came from his home, The Hermitage, in Tennessee. That’s the good news!"

"The bad news is that everything must come to an end, and this tree is in terrible condition, a very dangerous safety hazard, at the White House Entrance, no less, and must now be removed," he continued. 

TRUMP NOMINATES SUSAN MONAREZ TO BECOME THE NEXT CDC DIRECTOR, SAYS AMERICANS 'LOST CONFIDENCE' IN AGENCY

The historic tree will be chopped down in coming days, and Trump wrote that it will be replaced "by another, very beautiful tree."

"The Historic wood from the tree will be preserved by the White House Staff, and may be used for other high and noble purposes!!!" the president added.

Jackson, who served as president from 1829 to 1837, reportedly planted two magnolia trees near the White House in honor of his wife Rachel, who died in 1828. But according to the National Park Service's (NPS) website, the trees' connection to Old Hickory is debatable.

"Historical photographic documentation shows that magnolias first appeared at this location near the South Portico in the 1860s, still the trees are attributed to President Jackson," the agency explained.

IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES HIT JUDGE WHO ORDERED TRUMP TO STOP DEPORTATION FLIGHTS

"In 2006, the trees were designated as Witness Trees by the National Park Service, having borne witness to many ‘significant historic and cultural events,’" the NPS described. "The base of the trees also took the brunt of a Cessna airplane crash which targeted the White House in September 1994 and were subject to significant branch removal and pruning in December 2017."

Initial reactions to Trump's announcement were mixed on social media, though supporters of the president largely supported the decision.

"I am a tree expert by trade, I’ve worked with trees for three decades now… these [magnolia] trees have notoriously soft wood that can become dry and brittle with age," one X user wrote. "I wouldn’t be anywhere near that thing."

"Be prepared for the left to treat this like WW3," another joked.

"He is trying to lie his head off and rewrite or destroy history!" a Trump critic wrote. "The tree is much more important than Trump will EVER be!"