A federal judge sharply criticized government attorneys as “intemperate and disrespectful,” rebuking the Trump administration for proceeding with the deportation of Venezuelan gang suspects despite his explicit order to halt the flights.

Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee with 14 years on the bench, said Friday he had never witnessed such disregard for a judicial order, the Washington Times reported.

He also expressed deep concern over the administration’s decision to deport more than 200 Venezuelans last weekend, sending them to a high-security facility in El Salvador known for housing terrorists. The flights were launched immediately after President Trump signed a proclamation allowing members of Tren de Aragua (TdA) to be expelled under the Alien Enemies Act.

The judge remarked that the speed indicated something suspicious. “It seems to be the only reason to do that is if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country,” Boasberg said in court, the Times reported.

In less than a week, the case has escalated into a high-stakes constitutional clash between the executive and the judiciary branches. President Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, branding him “a radical left lunatic.”

Boasberg, meanwhile, has expressed frustration over what he implied was a deliberate attempt by the administration to undermine his authority through deceptive tactics.

“Did you tell them that it was an order from me to turn the planes around, or in whatever fashion you could, to bring people back to the United States?” he asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign during proceedings, the outlet reported.

Ensign acknowledged that he understood the “intent” behind the actions but declined to disclose the content of his discussions with government officials, citing attorney-client privilege as the reason for keeping those conversations confidential.

Boasberg then meted out a final scolding about “reputation and credibility.”

He insisted he wasn’t trying to undermine the president’s authority over foreign affairs and national security but argued that even in cases labeled as “terrorism” by the administration, individuals facing deportation must have an opportunity to challenge the decision.

“Individuals must have a chance to show that they are indeed members of a class that the [Alien Enemies Act] defines. My job is to find out where the balance lies,” Boasberg, an Obama appointee, said.

He emphasized that he wasn’t ordering anyone to be released into the U.S. and acknowledged that deportations could still proceed under standard immigration laws. His rulings, he clarified, apply solely to the administration’s attempt to invoke the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act.

For his part, Trump sees the argument differently.

“These are tough criminals, and we have to get them out,” the president said on Friday, just before the latest hearing, adding that the judge “has no idea what’s going on.”

The Justice Department, meanwhile, has argued before an appeals court that Boasberg has overstepped his authority by interfering with the president’s actions. It has formally requested that the appeals court remove him from the case.

Also, the DOJ has accused U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell of displaying “hostility” toward Trump and is calling for her to recuse herself from a case in which she blocked his efforts to penalize a Democrat-linked law firm involved in supporting the infamous Steele dossier.

Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson said Friday that Howell has a track record of showing “disdain” for Trump, citing remarks she made in 2023 suggesting he could steer the country toward authoritarianism, as well as more recent criticism of his pardons for individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot.

The DOJ also pointed to what it described as unusual rulings by Howell in prior criminal cases involving Trump, including a decision where she labeled him a potential flight risk.

“Defendants deserve a court proceeding free from concerns about impartiality. In order to remove the possibility of any impartiality to these proceedings, defendants respectfully request that this court recuse itself,” Lawson argued in a court filing.