In a divided ruling Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said a federal judge must stop what it called an “intrusive” criminal contempt investigation tied to deportation flights that moved Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador despite a prior court order. The panel concluded that Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion when he kept contempt proceedings going over allegations that the Trump administration failed to comply with the court directive.
The majority opinion was written by Circuit Judge Neomi Rao. Rao said the Trump administration had a “clear and indisputable” right to termination of the contempt proceedings, and she argued that the decision to pursue criminal contempt depended on whether the underlying order was “clear and specific.” Rao wrote that “The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” adding that “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific.”
At the core of the panel’s reasoning was how Boasberg’s earlier order worked. Rao’s majority opinion said Boasberg’s March 2025 order did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring the plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody. The ruling portrayed the contempt investigation as overreaching in light of the specificity required for criminal contempt.
Lawyers for the migrants said they would seek further review. Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said the majority decision is “a blow to the rule of law.” In a statement, Gelernt argued that the case turns on respect for court orders and that “Our system is built on the executive branch, including the president, respecting court orders,” adding that “in this case there is no longer any question that the Trump administration willfully violated the court’s order.”
The appeals court also laid out key dates and sequence in the underlying deportation episode. On March 15, 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that barred the administration from transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th century law. After the restraining order took effect, two planeloads of migrants protected by the order departed the United States for El Salvador, where they were held in a prison described by the appeals record as among the world’s most violent.
The administration argued at the time that the transfer decisions were made by then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. Boasberg, however, had said the administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order. He said he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”
The contempt dispute has unfolded alongside broader political and institutional tensions involving Boasberg. The Justice Department last year filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Trump called for impeaching Boasberg, and the dispute prompted a rare public rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who rejected calls for impeachment.
The appeals panel consisted of Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Rao’s majority. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented, arguing that the majority’s action would reshape how litigants contest contempt investigations.
Childs said the majority had trampled on Boasberg’s authority “in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings but will also echo in future proceedings against all litigants.” She wrote that “Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court’s order, that they did not commit contempt before contempt findings are even made,” adding that the dissent ran to 80 pages.