U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has issued a 46-page ruling holding members of the Trump administration in criminal contempt for carrying out deportations under President Donald Trump’s March 15 directive targeting members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, recently designated as a terrorist organization.

The judge’s ruling comes despite the Supreme Court vacating the very orders that formed the basis of the contempt charge.

The operation at the center of the dispute involved the deportation of dozens of detainees to El Salvador, including two flights that departed U.S. airspace prior to the filing of Boasberg’s written order.

The flights were part of the Trump administration’s enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act, which was invoked to expedite removal proceedings against foreign nationals with alleged ties to criminal and terrorist organizations.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

MORE NEWS: Doja Cat Candidly Confesses to Past Struggles with Cocaine and Alcohol [WATCH]

In his ruling, Judge Boasberg asserts that federal officials showed “a willful disregard” for his oral order during a March 15 emergency hearing.

According to Boasberg, he instructed Department of Justice counsel to notify officials that deportations under the Trump directive were barred and that anyone removed should be returned to the United States—even if their planes had already departed.

“As this Opinion will detail, the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg emphasized that “if a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.”

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

Following recent reports that Congress is considering a nationwide voter ID requirement for federal elections, do you support requiring voters to show identification before casting a ballot?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

However, the Supreme Court has since vacated both of Boasberg’s temporary restraining orders, concluding earlier this month that the D.C. District Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

That decision nullified the orders that Boasberg alleges were violated.

The judge’s written order barring the deportations was issued after the flights had already left the country.

The oral directive referenced by Boasberg was not included in the official court order, and government attorneys argue they were under no legal obligation to comply with verbal instructions not formalized in writing.

Close

MORE NEWS: Jaime Pressly Gets Booted From California Hotel Following Alleged Disturbance: Report

“Defendants provide no convincing reason to avoid the conclusion that appears obvious… that they deliberately flouted this Court’s written Order and, separately, its oral command that explicitly delineated what compliance entailed,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg acknowledged that his own written order did not include instructions to return deportees, and that planes had departed U.S. airspace before his oral comments were delivered.

Nonetheless, he maintains that the administration should have treated his verbal instruction as binding.

Critics of the ruling have pointed to Boasberg’s handling of the case, alleging that the judge has been setting up a “contempt trap” since March.

They note that Boasberg himself admitted during an April 3 hearing that the case was randomly assigned to him, while continuing to pursue contempt proceedings even after the Supreme Court vacated his restraining orders.

In the final section of the opinion, Boasberg states he will allow the administration the opportunity to “purge” the contempt by reversing the deportations.

If that does not occur, he plans to identify specific officials for potential criminal prosecution.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will find probable cause that Defendants’ actions constitute contempt. It will provide them an opportunity to purge such contempt. If they opt not to do so, the Court will proceed to identify the contemnor(s) and refer the matter for prosecution,” Boasberg wrote.

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.