1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge finds probable cause to hold US in…

Constitutional Law

Judge finds probable cause to hold US in contempt; is Trump administration ‘at the cusp of outright defiance’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 3:53 pm CDT

A federal judge who banned the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States ruled Wednesday that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his directive.

The federal government transferred the deportees to a prison in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, the judge said, and officials’ boasts implied that it was done “deliberately and gleefully.”

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia said he would give the Trump administration a chance to purge itself of contempt, and if the government doesn’t act, he would identify the people responsible for noncompliance. The final step would be a contempt prosecution, possibly by an appointed prosecutor.

CNN, the Washington Post, Law360 and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage of Boasberg’s April 16 order.

Boasberg ruled a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the administration to provide answers about why it apparently failed to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant mistakenly sent to the El Salvadoran prison, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 10.

The government’s clashes with Boasberg and Xinis have led to the government’s arrival “at the cusp of outright defiance,” the New York Times reports in a separate article. Other examples of the administration’s defiant stance include its freezing of funds that have been ordered released and its refusal to allow the Associated Press to participate in the press pool, despite a federal judge’s decision requiring access.

Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School, told Courthouse News Service that the executive branch “is intent on pushing the bounds of its authority as far as possible and now beyond the breaking point of our constitutional democracy.”

In the case before Xinis, the government has argued that facilitating the return of the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, means only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The government argument “does not pass the laugh test,” Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law SchooL, told the New York Times.

The New York Times concludes that defiance may not be in the form of an outright refusal to follow a judge’s order.

“It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence,” the article says.

Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, even though the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that the case had been filed in the wrong venue. The Supreme Court said the immigrants could only challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through a habeas action, which must be brought in the district in which they are confined.

Boasberg said the Supreme Court decision, which lifted his temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, “does not excuse the government’s violation.”

Every judicial order must be obeyed until it is reversed, he said.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg said the government could purge itself of contempt by giving the deportees sent to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal in a habeas proceeding by asserting custody over them. The government would not have to release people or bring them back to assert custody.

If the government does not purge itself of contempt, Boasberg will require declarations and possibly testimony, he said. The next step, if needed, would be to seek a contempt prosecution by the Department of Justice, and, if that is declined, to appoint another prosecutor.

The Trump administration planned to seek “immediate appellate relief” from Boasberg’s ruling, according to the New York Times.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant,…

Attorney General

DOJ opposes court-ordered return of immigrant, suspends lawyer who said he shouldn’t have been deported

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 7, 2025, 2:23 pm CDT

Updated: The U.S. Department of Justice on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a federal judge’s order to return an immigrant mistakenly sent to a prison in El Salvador in Central America—a move that followed the department’s decision to place one of its lawyers on indefinite leave, apparently for his admissions in the case.

The government is asking the high court to issue an administrative stay to block the order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland and to vacate her injunction.

The Washington Post and the New York Times have coverage of the government’s April 7 filing, while the New York Times, CNN and NBC News are among the publications with coverage of the DOJ lawyer’s suspension. Additional stories are noted by How Appealing.

The government application claims that Xinis “ordered unprecedented relief: dictating to the United States that it must not only negotiate with a foreign country to return an enemy alien on foreign soil but also succeed by 11:59 p.m. tonight.”

“While the United States concedes that removal to El Salvador was an administrative error,” the application says, “that does not license district courts to seize control over foreign relations, treat the executive branch as a subordinate diplomat, and demand that the United States let a member of a foreign terrorist organization into America tonight.”

Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused Xinis’ deadline Monday afternoon to allow for a full review by the Supreme Court, the Washington Post reports.

Xinis is an appointee of former President Barack Obama.

The government had alleged that the mistakenly deported immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, is a member of MS-13, a gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by the United States. Xinis said the government had offered no evidence to show that he is a gang member.

The now-suspended DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, was the acting deputy director of the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation. He had conceded in court that Abrego Garcia should not have been sent to El Salvador, and he had no evidence showing why the immigrant was even arrested, according to NBC News.

“The absence of evidence speaks for itself,” he said. “The government made a choice here to produce no evidence.”

When Xinis asked what kind of practical impediment kept the government from securing Abrego Garcia’s return, Reuveni said he asked the same question when the case was assigned to him.

“I have not yet received an answer that I find satisfactory,” he said.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi told the New York Times in a statement that Reuveni did not follow her order.

“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Bondi said. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”

The case is Noem v. Abrego Garcia.

Updated April 7 at 3:25 p.m. to include reporting on Chief Justice John Roberts’ order.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

Benchmark data can prove to be invaluable when making decisions about the future of your law firm. Understanding how others in the legal profession are using technology to streamline workflows and increase revenues can make all the difference.

That’s where the recently released 2025 Legal Industry Report from AffiniPay comes in. This report, published annually, offers insight into how legal professionals from firms of all sizes and practice areas are approaching and benefiting from technology adoption. Over 2,800 legal professionals were surveyed for this year’s survey, which covers a wide range of topics, including artificial intelligence adoption, financial management software choices and the continued shift to remote and hybrid work environments.

The data reveals notable trends surrounding legal professionals’ technology choices and outcomes, including how software adoption impacts firm profitability and how remote work choices are changing the landscape of law practice.

Increased interest in AI adoption

With generative AI continuing to make headlines, it’s not surprising that the data shows that interest in it has increased since last year’s report. For example, in 2024, 31% of legal professionals reported using generative AI tools for work, up from 27% in 2023.

Interestingly, the rate of adoption varied across firm size and practice areas. Immigration practitioners led generative AI usage, with 47% incorporating it into their daily workflows. Other practice areas, such as personal injury (37%), civil litigation (36%) and criminal law (28%), also reported high usage.

Despite the individual growth rates, the survey showed that legal-specific generative AI adoption at the firm level slowed slightly. Only 21% of firms reported using AI in 2024, down from 24% in 2023. This decline is likely due to firms being in the exploratory phase—testing AI tools in specific use cases or pilot programs, rather than fully integrating the technology. The overall sentiment shows that while AI is still being explored, many firms are taking a cautious and measured approach.

At the firm level, civil litigation firms reported the highest generative AI adoption rate, at 27%, followed by personal injury and family law firms, at 20% each. Trusts and estate firms and criminal law practices had lower adoption rates, at 18% each. Immigration firms reported the lowest adoption rate, at 17%.

Overall, the data shows that for those who have adopted generative AI tools, they are relying on them quite often. Among frequent users, 45% use AI daily, and 40% use it weekly. The most common tasks accomplished with it include drafting correspondence (54%), brainstorming ideas (47%), conducting general research (46%) and summarizing documents (39%).

Financial management tools for profitability and stability

Survey data also highlights how firms are increasingly adopting financial management software to improve financial workflows. In particular, legal-specific accounting and bookkeeping software has become a key tool for many firms. Respondents indicate that 37% of their firms have legal accounting software built into their firm’s practice management system, while 16% said it’s built into their firm’s billing software. Another 11% use software that is integrated with, rather than built into, their firm’s law practice management platform, and 16% reported adoption of a stand-alone legal accounting tool.

The survey data shows that legal accounting and bookkeeping tools have notably increased efficiency, with nearly 26% of firms reporting one to five hours reclaimed per month. Another 17% reduced workloads by six to 10 hours, 7% saved 15 or more hours each month, and 4% recovered a whopping 11 to 15 hours.

Another valuable tool for improving workflows is legal billing tools. The legal professionals surveyed (80%) relied on invoicing software, with 27% saving one to five hours per month, 16% saving six to 10 hours, and 12% saving 11 or more hours. The end benefit of the time saved using legal accounting and billing tools? Significant gains in productivity and profitability.

Growth of online payment processing

The report also highlights the increasing adoption of online payment processing software, with 82% of respondents sharing that their firms accept credit and/or debit card payments in 2024, up from 78% in 2023. This adoption has resulted in time savings and financial impact. More than a third of respondents (35%) saved between one to five hours per month using online payment systems, while 14% saved six to 10 hours. Also of note is that firms accepting card payments reported improved collection rates, with 59% of firms noting that their collection rates increased “somewhat more” or “significantly more” each month.

The growing use of online payment solutions is indicative of a broader trend toward automating tedious and time-consuming administrative tasks that were previously manual. By offering more payment options, firms are not only improving their financial stability but also freeing up time to devote to more client work and firm growth.

Remote and hybrid work adoption

Finally, the report addressed remote and hybrid work, which has become a staple for many firms. About three-fourths of survey respondents reported using cloud-based remote working tools, with videoconferencing (79%), e-signatures (78%) and e-filing (76%) ranking the highest.

Additionally, the data showed that the hybrid work model has gained traction in the legal profession. According to the survey results, 28% of firms operate fully in office, while 21% use hybrid schedules for all team members. Another 19% of firms are fully remote, and 18% adopt hybrid schedules for some staff members.

Just as remote and hybrid work continued post-pandemic, so too did participation in virtual court proceedings, with 34% of respondents attending virtual hearings a few times per month, 21% a few times per week and 5% every day.

Even so, preferences for in-person appearances remain strong, especially for certain types of proceedings. Half of respondents prefer to avoid virtual hearings, followed by jury trials (45%), bench trials (43%) and motion arguments (39%). However, practice areas significantly impacted these results.

For example, trust and estate professionals were more likely than the overall average to prefer virtual litigation proceedings, with only 36% opting for in-person jury trials, followed by bench trials (35%) and motion arguments and depositions (at 30% each).

In contrast, civil litigation and personal injury lawyers showed a stronger preference for in-person proceedings, with 56% each favoring jury trials, and 46% and 49%, respectively, choosing in-person depositions. Similarly, criminal law practitioners also leaned toward in-person proceedings, with 59% preferring hearings, 58% jury trials, 55% bench trials and 49% motion arguments.

Immigration lawyers, on the other hand, were less likely to prefer in-person litigation, with below-average preferences for motion arguments (26%), status conferences (22%) and depositions (19%).

In conclusion

The AffiniPay 2025 Legal Industry Report highlights a range of preferences and trends within the legal profession. While generative AI remains a focus, the data shows that firms are also adopting proven cloud-based technologies for billing, payments and remote work, highlighting an increasing reliance on specialized tools that enhance efficiency, save time and improve financial outcomes.

---

Nicole Black is a Rochester, New York-based attorney, author and journalist, and she is the principal legal insight strategist at MyCase, a company that offers legal practice management software for small firms. She is the nationally recognized author of Cloud Computing for Lawyers and is co-author of Social Media for Lawyers: The Next Frontier, both published by the American Bar Association. She writes regular columns for ABAJournal.com and Above the Law, has authored hundreds of articles for other publications, and regularly speaks at conferences regarding the intersection of law and emerging technologies. Follow her on X (formerly Twitter) @nikiblack, or she can be reached at [email protected].

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Trump administration invokes state secrets…

Immigration Law

Trump administration invokes state secrets privilege for deportation flights, disputes Nazi analogy

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 25, 2025, 11:02 am CDT

Government lawyers are arguing that the state secrets privilege protects the Trump administration from divulging details about deportation flights to El Salvador in Central America, and that the Venezuelans aboard weren’t entitled to notice that would give them time for a hearing.

Lawyers made those assertions Monday to a federal judge and a federal appeals court considering the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected Venezuelan gang members. The deportees were taken to a prison in El Salvador, where the conditions “are reportedly parlous,” according to Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington, D.C., who is overseeing the challenge to the law.

The New York Times, the Associated Press, Politico, the Washington Post, NPR and NBC News have coverage.

In a March 24 notice, the government invoked the state secrets privilege to avoid disclosing further details about flights carrying the deportees in what the New York Times termed a “stubborn response” and “a patent act of defiance.”

Boasberg had sought information about the timing of the flights to determine whether the government violated his March 15 temporary restraining order telling U.S. officials to stop or turn around the flights.

The government court filing said disclosing information about tracking of the flights “would both endanger the government personnel operating those flights and aid efforts by our adversaries to draw inferences about diplomatic negotiations and coordination” regarding the removal of “terrorists and other criminal aliens from the country.”

The New York Times said the government stance “is extraordinary in part because it is refusing to provide information to Judge Boasberg—a former presiding judge of the nation’s national security surveillance court—even privately and in a secure facility for handling classified information.”

Earlier Monday, Boasberg refused to vacate his TRO that bans the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act, last invoked during World War II, for the deportations.

The government has argued that Venezuelan gang members were acting under the direction of the Venezuelan government, a hostile nation, and their arrival in the United States was a “predatory incursion,” according to the New York Times.

Boasberg said in his opinion the government’s “unprecedented use” of the act outside wartime “implicates a host of complicated legal issues.” But there was no need to resolve the “thorny question” about the use of the act, Boasberg said, because the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the claim that they were entitled to hearings before deportations.

That issue was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Monday as the government sought a stay of the TRO. According to the Washington Post, government lawyers acknowledged that the suspected gang members are entitled to hearings but said the government doesn’t have to tell them that they have been deemed to be “alien enemies” or give them time to request hearings.

D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett commented that there were no procedures in place to notify the suspected gang members.

“Nazis got better treatment,” Millett said, referring to the use of hearing boards to remove suspected Nazis during World War II.

“We certainly dispute the Nazi analogy,” said Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

See also:

Trump’s deportation push tests courts’ ability to check his power

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those…

Immigration Law

Refugee ban can’t be enforced against those who received conditional approval, 9th Circuit says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

March 26, 2025, 2:29 pm CDT

A federal appeals court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to stop approving new refugees for U.S. admission during a legal challenge but said the government can’t keep out refugees who received conditional approval before the resettlement program was halted Jan. 20.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled on the government’s emergency motion in a March 25 order, report the Associated Press, the Washington Post, the New York Times and a March 25 press release.

In a Feb. 25 decision, U.S. District Judge Jamal N. Whitehead of the Western District of Washington had blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program, according to prior coverage by the New York Times. Whitehead said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their argument that the order was an “effective nullification of congressional will.”

On Monday evening, Whitehead issued a second preliminary injunction that orders the government to reinstate canceled cooperative agreements with resettlement agencies, according to another March 25 press release.

The legal challenge was filed by the International Refugee Assistance Project on behalf of Church World Service; HIAS, a Jewish resettlement agency; Lutheran Community Services Northwest; and nine people affected by the ban.

“The court affirmed that the government must continue processing and admitting eligible refugees whose lives were upended by President Trump’s refugee ban,” said Melissa Keaney, senior supervising attorney for litigation at the International Refugee Assistance Project, in a press release. “We welcome this continued relief for tens of thousands of refugees who will now have the opportunity to restart their lives in the United States and look forward to arguing this case in full.”

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.