Written by Jonathan Pierce.

On March 15, 2025, a federal judge issued an urgent injunction, demanding that planes carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members turn back mid-flight, aiming to halt President Donald Trump’s deportation efforts. Appointed by Barack Obama, Judge James Boasberg acted swiftly, but the order arrived too late—two flights with nearly 300 individuals had already touched down in El Salvador. This judicial intervention, challenged by the Trump administration, has since unraveled into a broader controversy, exposing a potential conflict of interest tied to the judge’s own daughter.

The injunction and its immediate fallout

Judge Boasberg’s ruling came during a Saturday night hearing, sparked by a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, groups known for their opposition to Trump’s immigration policies. He sought to block the use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a wartime measure Trump invoked to deport members of the Tren de Aragua gang without standard due process. Boasberg verbally ordered any airborne planes to return, citing “exigent circumstances,” though his written directive followed later. By then, the flights were beyond U.S. airspace, landing despite his command.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally, didn’t hold back. Posting on social media, he quipped, “Oopsie…Too late,” alongside a news link about the ruling—a jab that underscored the injunction’s failure. For a border town resident in Texas, where gang activity has spiked, this might feel like a mockery of efforts to curb crime. The planes carried 238 Venezuelans and 23 MS-13 members, part of a $6 million deal with El Salvador to house them for a year, highlighting the stakes of this legal tug-of-war.

The Justice Department fired back, arguing Boasberg’s authority didn’t extend over international waters. They claimed no flights departed after his written order, a technicality that’s now under scrutiny. A follow-up hearing on March 17 saw Boasberg press for details—when did flights take off, and who was aboard? His frustration was palpable, yet the administration held firm, citing national security to dodge specifics.

A conflict of interest emerges

Independent journalist Laura Loomer shifted the narrative with a stunning revelation: Judge Boasberg’s daughter, Katherine, works for Partners for Justice, a nonprofit that rails against deporting illegal immigrants—even violent ones—and “mass incarceration.” As a capacity-building associate, she manages grants and programs, bolstering an outfit that gets 76% of its funding from U.S. government grants. This taxpayer link raises eyebrows—could Boasberg’s family ties sway his rulings on cases like this?

Katherine’s role isn’t minor. She coordinates efforts that directly counter policies like Trump’s, including opposition to the Laken Riley Act, which toughens penalties for criminal migrants. Her boss, Emily Galvin-Almanza, even tweeted praise for Boasberg’s deportation block, tying the family connection closer. For a federal employee in D.C., reliant on those same grants, this might spark unease—public funds looping back to influence a judge’s kin? Loomer argues it’s a national security risk, demanding Boasberg recuse himself.

The fallout hit fast. Within hours of Loomer’s report on March 17, Katherine scrubbed her Instagram and LinkedIn profiles. That move—swift and silent—only fuels suspicion. Judicial ethics demand impartiality; if a judge’s kin works for an advocacy group with skin in the game, questions of bias aren’t abstract. The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges flags this as a recusal trigger when impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.” Here, it’s more than reasonable—it’s glaring.

Trump’s push and judicial pushback

Trump’s deportation plan leaned on the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used law last invoked during World War II to detain Japanese Americans—a history Congress later apologized for. He signed a proclamation on March 14, labeling Tren de Aragua an invading force tied to Venezuela’s regime, justifying rapid removals. The White House, led by Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, orchestrated the flights, catching many off guard—even within their own ranks.

Boasberg’s block isn’t his first clash with Trump. As chief judge of the D.C. District Court since 2023, he’s overseen high-stakes cases, including grand jury probes into Trump’s 2020 election actions and classified documents. His FISA Court tenure from 2014 to 2021, where he tackled FBI surveillance errors, shows a judge unafraid to check federal power. Yet this latest ruling, paired with the family tie, casts a shadow. A truck driver in Arizona, dodging gang-riddled routes, might wonder: whose side is the judiciary on?

The administration’s defiance isn’t subtle. Border Czar Tom Homan vowed more deportations, court order or not, while Trump, on Truth Social, called Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic” and pushed for impeachment—a rare escalation Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked, defending judicial independence. The DOJ’s bid to oust Boasberg from the case, filed hours before the March 17 hearing, flopped, but it signals a fight far from over.

Our take

Judge Boasberg’s injunction aimed to uphold due process, but its timing and execution fell flat—planes landed, and the deportations stuck. His intent to check Trump’s wartime gambit makes sense; the Alien Enemies Act’s peacetime use is a legal stretch, and courts exist to test such moves. Yet the revelation of Katherine Boasberg’s job at Partners for Justice muddies everything. It’s not just optics—it’s a tangible link to an agenda opposing the very policy he ruled on. Recusal isn’t optional here; it’s mandatory if trust in the bench holds any weight.

Trump’s team overreached, too—rushing flights mid-hearing smacks of dodging accountability. Both sides are digging in, risking a constitutional mess. For the public, caught between gang threats and judicial wrangling, it’s a lose-lose. Boasberg’s family tie isn’t a sidebar—it’s a crack in the system’s foundation. If he stays on, every ruling’s suspect. If Trump defies courts further, governance unravels. This isn’t about ideology; it’s about rules holding up under pressure. Right now, they’re buckling.