Americans are increasingly voicing concerns about judicial overreach, with frustration intensifying over the courts’ role in immigration policy. A tweet capturing this sentiment bluntly calls for the U.S. to “Bukele the courts,” referencing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s aggressive approach to judicial authority. This sentiment specifically targets federal judge James Boasberg, known for his confrontations with the Trump administration regarding deportation practices.
This controversy centers on mass deportation flights that transported over 260 Venezuelan migrants from American detention to a high-security prison in El Salvador. Many migrants had suspected ties to violent gangs, notably Tren de Aragua and MS-13. These actions were conducted under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a seldom-used law for managing national security issues. President Trump justified invoking this act, asserting that gang members were instigating an “irregular invasion.”
As the administration acted quickly, the judiciary sought to intervene. Judge Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15, 2025, instructing the Department of Justice to halt the deportations. However, the administration proceeded with the flights, highlighting a direct conflict between judicial authority and executive power. Boasberg indicated that the Constitution does not allow for willful disobedience to judicial orders, particularly from those sworn to uphold the law.
In his ruling on April 17, Boasberg found probable cause to hold senior officials in contempt, criticizing the administration for its “deliberate and gleeful” defiance of court orders. This sharp rebuke exemplified the tensions framing this issue.
The administration’s defense hinged on a technical argument: Judge Boasberg’s order had not been properly filed, and they asserted that national security superseded judicial jurisdiction. Yet, the court rejected this line of reasoning, reinforcing the significance of judicial oversight in matters of deportation and constitutional rights.
El Salvador’s government acknowledged the arrival of deportees, with President Bukele mockingly tweeting “Oopsie… too late 😊” shortly after the court’s order. This indicates not only a disregard for the court’s ruling but also a coordinated effort between the Trump administration and Bukele’s government, reinforcing a narrative of executive defiance against judicial limitations.
The deportees were taken to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center—one of the most secure facilities in the nation. Notably, some of these transfers were conducted with the U.S. military’s involvement, reflecting deep security cooperation between the two nations.
Legal proceedings continued surrounding individual deportees, such as Kilmar Abrego Garcia. His case illustrates the complexities involved, as he remained incarcerated despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling directing his return. His legal team contended he had been misidentified with no criminal history, raising serious questions about due process and misapplication of the law.
The broader implications of Judge Boasberg’s contempt ruling deepen the constitutional conflict between the powers of the executive and the judicial branches. Advocates argue that courts must ensure procedural fairness, even when dealing with foreigners accused of serious crimes. Conversely, the administration argues for decisive communication in the face of extraordinary threats, emphasizing a need for swift action against perceived dangers.
The call to “Bukele the courts” resonates with some citizens who believe political motivations are obstructing necessary immigration enforcement. They argue that judicial interference undermines national sovereignty and the ability to address crime effectively.
The situation is further complicated by claims from both sides regarding the backgrounds of deportees. The Trump administration alleged that 137 of the deported individuals were known members of Tren de Aragua, a group implicated in various criminal activities. However, civil rights advocates warn that many deportees were unjustly targeted based on superficial criteria, such as tattoos or unverified suspicions. Lawsuits from organizations like the ACLU claim violations of constitutional rights resulting from the application of the Alien Enemies Act.
Originally designed for wartime scenarios, the 1798 law leaves significant room for executive interpretation. Critics assert that its application to gang violence lacks merit, arguing it should only come into play during formal military conflicts. The administration countered by claiming that transnational gang violence constitutes a form of warfare, justifying their actions under the AEA.
In April 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, vacating Judge Boasberg’s restraining order but stopping short of authorizing the administration’s actions completely. The justices highlighted legal flaws in Boasberg’s order while still allowing the deported migrants the opportunity to file habeas corpus petitions, thus preserving some judicial recourse.
As tens of deportees remain imprisoned in El Salvador, advocates voice concern about the lack of due process in overseas detention centers. They worry that many could find themselves trapped indefinitely without proper legal representation or the chance to contest their deportation. On the other side, supporters insist that immigration enforcement must remain robust and assertive to combat gang violence, arguing that courts must not hamper executive action.
The notion of “Bukele-ing” the judiciary has ignited heated discussions about the appropriate balance between judicial oversight and national security needs. This issue underscores a critical crossroads where two branches of government interact, raising fundamental questions about authority, legality, and the future of immigration policy in the United States. As this legal battle unfolds, the ultimate resolution may not come from courtrooms but rather from the political will of the electorate and the shifting dynamics of governance.
"*" indicates required fields
