Trump administration officials could face criminal contempt charges for violating a US federal judge’s order halting deportations of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang who had no chance to challenge their removals, the judge said on Wednesday.

In a written ruling, US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington found “probable cause” to hold officials in criminal contempt of court, saying the administration demonstrated “willful disregard” for his March 15 order barring the deportations to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.

Many of the migrants’ lawyers and family members say those deported are not gang members and were never given a chance to contest the US government’s assertion that they were.

Wednesday’s ruling is the closest any court has come to suggesting punishing the administration since President Donald Trump returned to the White House on January 20, and escalates the confrontation between the judicial and executive branches.

The US Justice Department appealed the ruling to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Boasberg said the administration could still avoid being held in contempt by taking steps to comply with his order - namely, by allowing the migrants to challenge their removals in court. He gave the administration until April 23 to outline what steps it would take, or to identify the officials who decided to disregard his order so they could potentially be prosecuted.

The judge noted that Secretary of State Marco Rubio had retweeted an X post in which El Salvador President Nayib Bukele shared a link to a news story about Boasberg’s order blocking deportations and said, “Oopsie...Too late.”

“Boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully,” the judge wrote.

White House Communications Director Steven Cheung said on X the administration would seek immediate appellate relief.

A Justice Department spokesperson said: “His (Boasberg’s) underhanded attempt to maintain power over this case is a judicial power grab that the Department of Justice will fight by all means necessary.”

‘STRONG REBUKE’

The Trump administration faces more than 150 legal challenges to its policies. Democrats and some legal analysts say officials in some cases are dragging their feet in complying with unfavorable court orders, signaling a potential willingness to disobey an independent, coequal branch of government.

On Tuesday, US District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said she would ramp up an inquiry into whether the administration violated an order that it secure the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man the administration has acknowledged was wrongly deported to El Salvador, but said she would not hold the administration in contempt just yet.

On Wednesday, the Justice Department appealed Xinis’ order, which would require officials to face questioning on the steps they had taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.

Boasberg’s order goes further. He wrote that if the administration does not purge its contempt, he could require officials to submit sworn declarations or face questioning under oath. The judge said he could order that a government prosecutor take up the case, or potentially appoint another lawyer to act as a prosecutor if the government refuses.

“It’s a very strong rebuke to the administration,” said Professor Jonathan Hafetz at the Seton Hall University School of Law.

Trump called for Boasberg’s impeachment over his blocking of the deportations. That prompted a rare rebuke from US Chief Justice John Roberts, who said appeals, not impeachments, were the proper response to disagreements with court orders.

The judiciary is not the only US institution to come under pressure. The Trump administration has targeted others that have long cherished their independence from partisan politics, such as universities and law firms.

‘OOPSIE’

The case stems from Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. It is best known for its use to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent during World War Two. Some were US citizens.

Lawyers for the migrants in El Salvador have told Reuters they have not been able to visit, speak to or learn about the whereabouts and conditions of their clients.

“Today’s decision affirms what we have long known: the government’s conduct in this case is unlawful and a threat to people and our Constitution,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, an advocacy group for migrants in the case.

It was unclear whether the threat of contempt would compel the administration to comply with Boasberg’s order. In general, the threat has been enough to get government officials to comply. Government officials are rarely found in contempt and threatened with jail time.

The president may pardon people convicted of criminal contempt, says the US Congressional Research Service, an independent entity that provides policy analysis to lawmakers.

In 2017, during his first term in office, Trump pardoned former Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio less than a month after he was convicted of criminal contempt in a case involving racial profiling.