When the Justice Department Breaks the Law
What Happens When DOJ Attorneys Lie to a Judge, Defy Court Orders, and Dare the Judiciary to Hold Them Accountable
The question I get asked the most right now is this:
"Why haven’t the judges held the DOJ in contempt yet? Why isn’t anyone getting cuffed or fined?"
It’s a fair question. From the outside, it looks like the Department of Justice is blatantly ignoring court orders—and getting away with it. But inside those courtrooms, something very different is happening. The judges aren’t asleep. They’re documenting, calculating, and preparing.
Because when you go up against the DOJ, you don’t swing wild—you build an airtight case, brick by brick.
Contempt of Court: What It Actually Means
"Contempt" is not just a dramatic term. In legal terms, it’s a powerful tool courts use to enforce compliance or punish disobedience.
There are two main types:
Civil Contempt – Designed to coerce compliance. This could mean daily fines, mandatory testimony, or even jail time until compliance is achieved.
Criminal Contempt – Designed to punish defiance. This typically follows due process and can result in fines, professional sanctions, or incarceration.
When someone lies to the court, misleads the court, or refuses to obey an order, they open the door to either—or both.
What the Judges Are Doing—and Why It Takes Time
To understand the delay, you have to understand how carefully federal judges move—especially when the Department of Justice is the violator. Here’s what’s happening in the courtrooms:
They’re building a complete factual record
Judges like Paula Xinis and James Boasberg are letting the DOJ dig its own hole, slowly and visibly:
They issue detailed orders with clear deadlines
They record each government failure or misrepresentation in the docket
They demand status updates and sworn declarations
They ask pointed questions that force DOJ attorneys to commit to positions that can later be used against them
This isn’t inaction—it’s strategic accumulation of evidence.
They’re preparing for the inevitable appeal
If a judge holds the DOJ in contempt, the Department will appeal. That appeal will go to a higher court and may be reviewed by politically sensitive panels—or even the Supreme Court.
So the lower court judge has to make their ruling bulletproof:
No procedural shortcuts
No vague language
No speculation—just documented misconduct
The more airtight the contempt ruling, the harder it is to overturn. And when it’s the DOJ, the stakes are massive.
Boasberg: Contempt Already on the Record
In the D.C. District Court, Chief Judge James Boasberg has already made a finding of criminal contempt against the DOJ for violating his March 15 order to halt deportations.
The DOJ ignored it—and deported individuals anyway.
He hasn’t ruled on penalties yet. Why not? Because he gave DOJ a narrow window to purge the contempt—to try to fix what they broke. He’s also giving them enough rope to either comply or prove their defiance. When he does rule, it’ll be nearly impossible for DOJ to claim surprise or procedural unfairness.
Judge Xinis: Laying the Foundation in Real Time
In Maryland, Judge Paula Xinis is presiding over the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. She hasn’t ruled on contempt yet—but she is unmistakably laying the groundwork:
She has flagged the DOJ’s failure to meet court-ordered deadlines
She has questioned the credibility of their statements on the record
She has demanded increasingly precise disclosures
She has given them multiple opportunities to correct course—and they keep refusing
This is how a contempt ruling is made appeal-proof. Her orders are long, meticulous, and impossible to misinterpret. If she finds contempt, it won’t just be justified—it’ll be rock solid.
Why Contempt Against the DOJ Is Different
Holding a government agency in contempt is not like jailing a private citizen. When a judge targets the DOJ:
It triggers a separation of powers conflict—judicial vs. executive authority
It puts individual federal attorneys—career civil servants or political appointees—under legal scrutiny
It raises the question: who exactly should be held accountable?
That last one matters. Judges don’t hold entire agencies in contempt. They name names.
So who might be on the hook?
Line attorneys who signed misleading filings
Supervisors who approved the legal strategy
DOJ liaisons to ICE or DHS who failed to act
If a judge chooses to hold someone in contempt, it will be specific, targeted, and documented. No one is cuffing "the DOJ"—but a person could very well be sanctioned, fined, or referred for discipline.
A Note on Precedent: Has DOJ Ever Been Held in Contempt?
Yes—and while it's rare, it has happened, and the consequences vary widely depending on the case.
In United States v. Texas (2016), DOJ attorneys were ordered to attend ethics training and barred from appearing in court after misleading the judge about the implementation of DAPA.
In the Cobell v. Norton trust fund case, Cabinet officials were held in contempt, and a special master was appointed to oversee compliance.
In the Senator Ted Stevens case, prosecutorial misconduct led to a dismissed conviction and a nationwide overhaul of DOJ’s Brady policies.
Most relevant to today: in J.G.G. v. Trump (2025), Judge Boasberg has already issued a criminal contempt finding for DOJ’s willful defiance of a deportation injunction. While sanctions haven’t yet been imposed, he has made it clear that individuals—not just the agency—may face consequences.
These examples show that while DOJ contempt is uncommon, it’s not without precedent—and when it sticks, it sticks hard.
What Happens Next
If the DOJ continues to defy the courts:
Judges can issue civil contempt orders with daily fines
They can compel personal appearances by DOJ attorneys or supervisors
They can refer attorneys for disciplinary action or bar complaints
They can issue criminal contempt findings with potential jail time
And the more airtight the record, the more likely any contempt finding is to survive appeal.
The Score So Far
Court orders to return deported individuals: 2
Individuals actually returned: 0
Confirmed detained in CECOT prison in El Salvador: 137
Individuals still in U.S. custody with active deportation orders under the
Alien Enemies Act: Unknown number (but confirmed to exist)
In multiple court filings, the DOJ has acknowledged that some individuals remain detained on U.S. soil while awaiting deportation under the AEA. The actual number is being withheld, but we do have a critical clue: President Nayib Bukele publicly offered a 1-for-1 trade for 252 Salvadoran nationals detained in the U.S. in exchange for 252 Venezuelan prisoners held in El Salvador.
This offer, disclosed through diplomatic backchannels and later confirmed publicly, strongly suggests that at least 252 individuals remain in U.S. custody under Alien Enemies Act authority.
Efforts to compel formal disclosure of this number are underway through ongoing discovery—particularly in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia litigation, where deadlines for production of these figures are approaching on May 23 and May 26.
This matters. These individuals are at immediate risk of being deported to El Salvador—potentially to imprisonment in CECOT—in direct violation of active federal court orders. The government has been asked to identify them. So far, they haven’t.
Beyond Contempt: What Other Tools Exist to Force Compliance?
The courts may be moving cautiously, but make no mistake: judges are not out of options. And some of the most potent levers aren’t just contempt rulings—they’re mechanisms that test the boundaries of executive defiance and judicial authority.
Let’s break down a few:
Personal Sanctions and Bar Referrals
If DOJ attorneys continue to mislead the court or file incomplete disclosures, judges can initiate personal sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 or the court’s inherent authority.
This includes:
Monetary penalties
Formal referrals to state bar associations
Temporary or permanent disqualification from appearing before the court
These aren’t just slaps on the wrist. A single judge’s referral can derail a career—and judges know exactly how to write those referrals to be unignorable.
Mandamus Orders to Subordinates
If the DOJ is failing at the top, the court can issue direct writs of mandamus compelling action by lower-level officials—DHS officers, ICE directors, U.S. Marshals.
This allows the judge to bypass obstructive DOJ leadership and enforce court orders directly on those executing the removals.
It also creates a situation where someone will have to choose whether to defy the judge or defy the agency. And someone will break.
Appointing a Special Master or Federal Monitor
In past high-stakes cases (see: Cobell v. Norton), courts have appointed independent legal monitors or special masters to oversee compliance.
This could include:
Access to ICE and DOJ files
Regular interviews with detained individuals
Independent verification of compliance
This strips the DOJ of its monopoly over the facts—and puts pressure on the agency to act transparently or risk exposure.
Public Hearings and Live Testimony
Judges can compel in-person appearances—on the record, in open court. They can haul in attorneys, ICE officers, even top officials, and force them to answer under oath why they violated a court order.
It doesn’t matter if that hearing leads to jail time.
It leads to headlines.
It leads to records.
It leads to risk—the very thing DOJ leadership is hoping to avoid.
Referral to Congress
It’s rare—but not unthinkable.
If a judge determines that executive branch officials are engaged in sustained, systemic defiance of the judiciary, they can refer the matter to Congress under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act or seek enforcement through the appropriations process.
That’s not just legal—it’s political. Because at that point, contempt becomes more than a court matter. It becomes a constitutional showdown.
The New Front: Judges Murphy and Gallagher Are Turning Up the Pressure
We’re no longer talking about if the DOJ is in contempt. The real question is how many times—and how far the judiciary is willing to go to force compliance.
On May 20, Judge Brian Murphy called an emergency hearing in the D.V.D. v. DHS case after learning the Department had issued what appeared to be a fake “indicative” asylum decision and continued violating prior orders. That hearing is ongoing and continues May 21 at 11 a.m. ET.
Judge Murphy’s tone has shifted. He’s no longer assuming good faith. The hearing isn’t just a procedural check-in—it’s a signal that the court is done playing catch-up with government misconduct.
Meanwhile, in a separate case, Judge Gallagher is tracking compliance after issuing her own ruling halting deportations and demanding transparency. She has ordered a formal update due by May 27, requiring the DOJ to demonstrate what steps—if any—they’ve taken to comply.
Both judges are now in active enforcement mode.
One is convening emergency hearings to interrogate the record in real time.
The other is demanding written proof of action—or inaction.
This isn’t the usual pace of federal court. This is urgency. This is pressure. And if the DOJ continues to stonewall or submit fiction disguised as filings, contempt isn’t just a possibility—it’s the next logical step.
And One More Thing: Don’t Discount Amici
Legal advocacy groups, bar associations, and former DOJ officials can file amicus briefs urging contempt enforcement—or disciplinary review. If the courts won’t act fast, outside pressure can build the momentum judges need to move boldly. It’s happened before.
And it’s happening again.
Final Word (Expanded): The Clock Is Ticking
Every deadline missed, every misleading filing, every person still trapped in a Salvadoran supermax against court orders—it all compounds. And while the public grows furious, these judges are building something durable.
They know what they’re up against: not just an agency, but a system that assumes it will never face consequences.
But if the courts act—and they still can—the record they’re building won’t just support contempt.
It will demand it.
And history will have no excuse not to remember who stood firm—and who chose to look away.
Author's Note: I get the frustration. But contempt against the DOJ isn’t a headline—it’s a legal weapon. Judges are building a record so solid it can survive any appeal. That takes time. But when it lands, it lands hard.
Thank you Ashley. That was very helpful.
You make a thorough and excellent explanation of the process and for that I thank you but honestly it sounds like a contempt conviction does not happen quickly and ultimately doesn’t mean that much