In a dramatic turn of events, the Department of Justice has approached a federal appellate court in Washington, D.C., requesting intervention to halt a judge’s persistent inquiry into potential misconduct by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem. The DOJ’s appeal comes ahead of a scheduled court appearance where Noem was expected to argue against a criminal contempt referral related to Alien Enemies Act deportations.

The DOJ’s emergency request for a writ of mandamus was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday. This action precedes the testimony of Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ attorney turned whistleblower, who is set to testify early next week. The Trump administration criticized Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg for demanding live testimony over written court declarations, which Boasberg deemed insufficient for the case.

The DOJ argues that Boasberg’s inquiry into the alleged deportations, which supposedly occurred in defiance of a judicial order to halt flights, ventures into “constitutionally uncharted territory.” They described his actions as “dubious and troubling,” labeling his recent directive as “incoherent on its own terms.”

“Should the district court persist in believing that Defendants breached its temporary restraining order (TRO), it has the prerogative to refer the issue for potential prosecution. However, the court lacks authority to conduct an independent criminal investigation,” the DOJ stated. They emphasized that all relevant and non-privileged information has already been provided and underscored that the court had previously reached a probable cause determination without needing further evidence.

In August, a D.C. Circuit panel with a majority of Trump-appointed judges took the unusual step of issuing a writ of mandamus to overturn Boasberg’s contempt-related order. The DOJ now seeks a similar resolution, even though a full panel opinion in November affirmed that Boasberg could request identification of the decision-makers involved in the controversial deportations and consider further actions.

Boasberg, a Barack Obama appointee also once appointed by George W. Bush to the Washington, D.C., Superior Court, responded accordingly at the start of the week — a move the DOJ sees as a pointless ratcheting up of a conflict between two of three branches of government.

“The district court’s order both usurps executive power and needlessly generates inter-branch conflict by appointing itself as an investigator seeking to identify and root out imagined government misconduct,” the DOJ continued.

As Law&Crime reported, the controversy dates back to March 15, when Boasberg held a hearing on a Saturday and orally issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), blocking the government from carrying out sweeping AEA deportations of Venezuelan nationals to a notorious Salvadoran prison — individuals whom the government alleged were affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang — and ordering the Trump administration to turn around any planes that were in the air.

The planes did not turn around. Ever since, Boasberg has been trying to get to the bottom of who told whom what, when, and why — that is, the legal basis for apparent non-compliance.

According to Boasberg’s latest order, Noem and DOJ higher-ups have only “submitted cursory declarations” providing an explanation under penalty of perjury, necessitating the testimony of fired DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign. The latter claimed at the March 15 hearing that he did “not have additional details [he] can provide at this time” about whether deportation flights were afoot.

While Noem has specifically declared she decided to move the deportations forward before Boasberg issued his order, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, President Trump’s former criminal defense lawyer, stated that on the evening of March 15 he provided “privileged legal advice” to Noem through Acting DHS General Counsel Joseph Mazzara.

Concluding that testimony was needed to decide whether there was a “willful violation of the Court’s Order” warranting a referral for prosecution, Boasberg set testimony for next week.

The DOJ says it does not want that testimony to take place because it could mean the “likely disclosure of privileged information[.]” Therefore, the Trump administration sought a stay and “extraordinary” and “drastic” mandamus relief.

“Immediate review is particularly appropriate to stave off a looming ‘constitutional confrontation’ between the Executive and Judicial Branches,” the DOJ said, describing Boasberg as “doggedly pursuing an idiosyncratic and misguided,” and “ongoing illegal inquiry” into whether the government “committed criminal contempt.”

“Defendants did not—and have repeatedly and forthrightly explained why not—but the court has barreled ahead,” the filing said, labeling the scheduled proceeding as a “circus” and “spectacle” that “is not a genuine effort to uncover any relevant facts.”