The Department of Justice is apparently no longer willing to play ball with U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, the Washington, D.C.-based activist judge who has spent the past year frustrating the Trump administration's efforts to keep suspected criminal noncitizens out of the homeland.

This turning point, signaled in a court filing last week, all but guarantees a showdown between Boasberg and government attorneys in the case J.G.G. v. Trump on Monday — and a possible return to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quick background

President Donald Trump issued a proclamation on March 15 invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring Tren de Aragua "a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization."

The Trump administration subsequently deported hundreds of suspected Venezuelan gangsters — many of whom were credibly accused of murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes — to El Salvador, where they were placed in a Salvadoran prison for terrorists.

'Defendants intend to immediately appeal.'

In July, the administration had Venezuelan deportees who were imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center repatriated to Venezuela, where they were welcomed home by Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, who has since been deposed.

The deportees' safe return home evidently wasn't enough for Boasberg and other activists back in the U.S., including the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the suspected foreign gangsters.

RELATED: Federalism cannot be a shield for sanctuary defiance

Photo by El Salvador Press Presidency Office/Anadolu via Getty Images

In December, Boasberg — an Obama-appointed judge who initially tried to stop the deportations and previously helped the Biden FBI spy on Republican lawmakers' phone records — certified the Venezuelan deportees as a class and ordered the administration to offer them legal relief abroad.

DOJ punches back

DOJ lawyers noted in a filing last week that Boasberg's demands were unworkable.

For starters, the government lawyers pointed out that remote hearings for all of the suspected Venezuelan gangsters would "present insuperable legal bars and substantial practical problems that together render this an untenable and unacceptable proposal."

Besides there being "no legal basis for holding remote habeas hearings without custody," the lawyers noted that the U.S. "cannot enforce perjury or other procedural rules in Venezuela, or even verify the identity of the witnesses." Additionally there would be no way of ensuring that sensitive or classified information implicated in the proceedings could be protected over "potentially unsecure lines in foreign settings."

In light of these and other problems with remote hearings, the lawyers noted that "the only jurisdictionally proper means of permitting new habeas proceedings would be for aliens to return to United States custody."

Bringing the Venezuelans back for proceedings, however, "presents grave national security and foreign policy impediments" — not least because the deportees "have been determined to be members of a foreign terrorist organization" and may lack passports or identity documents.

The lawyers suggested that taking the Venezuelans back into custody would require "diplomacy with top leaders in the Delcy Rodriguez interim regime or foreign sovereigns in third countries and thus raise separation of powers issues."

Satisfying Boasberg's order would threaten "material damage to U.S. foreign policy interests in Venezuela" as it would inject an "extremely complicated issue into what is already a delicate situation, potentially negatively affecting U.S. efforts toward stabilization and transition that aim to benefit tens of millions of Venezuelans," added the lawyers.

The DOJ effectively concluded by telling Boasberg to pound sand: "If, over Defendants' vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!