A federal judge has ordered a senior Justice Department attorney to testify about the administration’s March decision to deport more than 100 men under the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg directed Drew Ensign, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Immigration Litigation, to appear at a hearing on Dec. 16. He also summoned former DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni, who has alleged the administration evaded court orders, to testify on Dec. 15.
In March, the government used the wartime Alien Enemies Act to remove two planeloads of suspected gang members to the CECOT prison in El Salvador, saying Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua operates as a “hybrid criminal state” that poses an invasion-like threat to the United States. Boasberg had issued a temporary restraining order and instructed authorities to turn the flights around, but Justice Department lawyers later said his oral instructions were defective and the deportations proceeded. The judge subsequently launched contempt proceedings against the government.
Boasberg said witness testimony is needed to clarify why officials transferred the detainees out of U.S. custody in the context of the March 15, 2025, hearing and that the events surrounding the March transfers should illuminate that decision. At the same time, he said the available record is insufficient to justify referring anyone for criminal prosecution. He found that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s sworn declaration did not provide enough information to conclude her actions were a willful violation of the court’s order.
Noem’s filing said she continued the transfers after receiving legal advice from DOJ leadership and from Joseph Mazarra, the acting DHS general counsel. Mazarra’s declaration said he reviewed Boasberg’s order, advised Noem, and asserted the removals occurred before the court issued any formal order or oral statement concerning the flights.
A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The DOJ has maintained it does not believe officials deliberately violated the judge’s return order and has argued the contempt investigation is overbroad.