In a move that has ignited legal battles and political turmoil, President Donald Trump’s administration is celebrating its use of a rarely invoked wartime authority to carry out mass deportations of alleged gang members to El Salvador. However, the episode has raised serious concerns about the ability of the U.S. judicial system to constrain the administration’s actions.

Defying a Judge’s Order

Despite a federal judge’s ruling that planes carrying the deportees must return to the U.S., at least one flight carrying Venezuelan deportees continued its course to El Salvador. Upon arrival, the deportees were met by Salvadoran soldiers, police, and videographers, capturing stark imagery of their forced expulsion.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele wasted no time in showcasing the event. A dramatic video posted on social media depicted tattooed men being marched off the plane by heavily armed guards, forced to bow as they were led onto buses. Hooded prison guards later shaved their heads, reinforcing the spectacle.

Bukele openly mocked the U.S. court’s decision on X, formerly Twitter, responding to reports of the judge’s ruling with a dismissive: “Oopsie…Too late,” punctuated by a tears-of-joy emoji. He later confirmed that the transfer was part of a deal brokered with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, allowing the U.S. to house the alleged gang members in El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center for a “low fee.” The mega-prison, built to accommodate over 40,000 inmates, has drawn scrutiny from human rights organizations due to reports of overcrowding and harsh conditions.

The Legal Pushback

Justice Department lawyers, in a vague two-page filing, argued that by the time Judge James Boasberg issued his order, the deportation process had already been completed. The administration claimed that the ruling was not legally binding until it appeared in the electronic docket, a technicality that has only fueled further controversy.

Attorney General Pam Bondi took a defiant stance, accusing Boasberg of siding with “Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans.” She reaffirmed the administration’s commitment to the deportations, vowing that the Department of Justice would remain “undeterred” in its efforts to combat what Trump has frequently labeled an “invasion.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this sentiment, touting the success of the operation in safeguarding American lives. “Thanks to the great work of the Department of State, these heinous monsters were extracted and removed to El Salvador, where they will no longer be able to pose any threat to the American people,” she declared. Leavitt dismissed reports that the administration defied the court’s order, asserting that it had “no lawful basis” and was issued too late to be enforced.

Political Fallout and Public Reaction

The high-profile deportation effort has drawn sharp criticism from human rights advocates and legal experts, who argue that Trump’s reliance on the Alien Enemies Act—a law dating back to 1798—sets a dangerous precedent. The act has only been invoked three times in U.S. history, all during times of war. By utilizing this rarely used law, Trump has bypassed standard immigration procedures and asylum protections, fueling concerns about executive overreach.

“The video of these men in El Salvador starkly reinforces that the Court was correct in moving quickly to stop any further flights until the legal issue could be fully considered,” said Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who is representing some of the deportees in the lawsuit against the administration.

Despite Trump’s assertion that all those deported were gang members, questions remain about how these designations were made. Attorneys for some of the deportees insist their clients have no gang affiliation and had not exhausted their legal avenues in U.S. immigration courts.

A Broader Political Clash

The case has also become a rallying point for Trump’s allies. Tech mogul and Trump administration official Elon Musk joined the fray, responding to calls for Judge Boasberg’s impeachment with a simple but telling reply: “Necessary.” Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers, including Rep. Brandon Gill of Texas, have vowed to pursue legal action against what they describe as “activist judges” attempting to obstruct Trump’s immigration policies.

The political implications of this episode extend far beyond the immediate legal battle. Trump’s second-term approach to immigration enforcement has already proven to be more aggressive than his first, signaling a broader shift in how the U.S. government handles deportations and national security concerns.

As the dust settles, the ramifications of this controversial deportation policy will continue to reverberate through the courts, Congress, and international relations. Whether Trump’s unprecedented use of executive authority withstands legal scrutiny remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: the battle over immigration policy in America is far from over.