The U.S. Justice Department has escalated its conflict with Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, claiming that his ongoing investigation poses a “mortal threat” to attorney-client privilege amid a controversial legal inquiry involving deportation flights.

This dramatic standoff stems from Boasberg’s directive requiring two department lawyers to testify about deportation flights, a decision the Justice Department vehemently opposes. It argues that such testimony would breach confidentiality protections and risk criminal contempt charges against the lawyers.

The Justice Department’s accusations were detailed in a reply brief submitted to the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as tensions rise ahead of a key court hearing scheduled for September 29.

Boasberg, a federal judge since 2011 after being appointed by President Barack Obama, has recently faced scrutiny for his role in the investigation surrounding the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. His inquiry began in response to flights that allegedly violated his orders requiring the government to turn the planes around.

The Justice Department claims the judge’s insistence on swearing in attorneys under oath reflects an unusual overreach for a judicial figure. According to the department, this would enable opposing counsel to cross-examine government lawyers, which they view as grossly improper.

“Plaintiffs fail to identify any precedent for such an anomalous proceeding, which poses a mortal threat to the attorney-client privilege,” the Justice Department wrote in its brief. The filing criticizes Boasberg for abandoning his judicial responsibilities to act like a prosecutor.

This legal battle began in March 2025 when Judge Boasberg ordered the government to halt deportation flights of Venezuelan men heading to a prison in El Salvador. Despite his orders, the flights continued, prompting further legal action.

Specifically, Boasberg had instructed the government to halt any deportations without making explicit demands about reversing already-in-progress flights, which had already carried over 260 passengers between them.

At the heart of the dispute is whether the actions of Justice Department officials amounted to criminal contempt. The department has argued that the judge’s orders were untenable from the start, as the Supreme Court had previously deemed them void due to lack of jurisdiction.

As the legal wrangling continues, key figures within the Justice Department, including former attorney Erez Reuveni and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign, have been named as potential witnesses. Their testimony could expose significant legal repercussions and internal conflicts.

The situation has attracted political attention, with Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Blumenthal characterizing Boasberg’s investigation as a matter of potential contempt of court involving senior Justice Department officials.

Compounding the dilemma is the involvement of several high-profile individuals, including Kristi Noem, who was Homeland Security Secretary at the time, and Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. Their roles could complicate the government’s defense.

The Justice Department argues that no crime occurred since “removing” individuals refers solely to taking people out of U.S. territory, not merely transferring custody of individuals already outside the country.

Legal experts have weighed in, with more than 200 former judges supporting Boasberg’s authority to investigate. They argue this type of inquiry is essential, referencing historical precedents for judges conducting investigations to uphold the rule of law.

These former judges emphasized in a friend-of-the-court brief that a court issue must be taken seriously; otherwise, it risks being seen as irrelevant and advisory rather than binding.

Amid these allegations, Judge Boasberg’s authority continues to be challenged, yet he has upheld the position that a probe is justified given the potential violations of law by high-ranking officials.

If the appeals court rules against the Justice Department, the department is poised to request a two-week stay on the proceedings to allow for a potential Supreme Court appeal.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for both attorney-client privilege and the boundaries of judicial authority in the evaluation of executive actions.

As this high-stakes legal drama continues to unfold, the conflict highlights broader tensions between the judiciary and executive branches, raising questions about accountability and the legal frameworks governing immigration enforcement.