 (6).png)
9 hours ago
1
ARTICLE AD BOX
The case stems from a March 15, 2025, temporary restraining order issued by Boasberg, which barred the administration from transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th-century law.
The ruling stated that the Trump administration had a “clear and indisputable” right to have the proceedings terminated.(Bloomberg)A divided federal appeals court has ruled that a lower court judge must end his contempt investigation into the Trump administration over deportation flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in 2025.
The three-judge panel from the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that Chief Judge James Boasberg overstepped his authority by pursuing criminal contempt proceedings. The majority concluded the investigation was “intrusive” and not legally justified.
Majority: “Abuse of discretion”
Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao said the lower court had committed a fundamental legal error.
“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote.
She emphasized that criminal contempt requires a clear and specific violation of a court order, adding: “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”
The ruling stated that the Trump administration had a “clear and indisputable” right to have the proceedings terminated.
Disputed deportation flights
The case stems from a March 15, 2025, temporary restraining order issued by Boasberg, which barred the administration from transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th-century law.
Boasberg later suggested the administration may have acted in bad faith, stating he had given officials “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” but found that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”
Sharp dissent warns of consequences
Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs issued a forceful dissent, warning that the majority decision undermines judicial authority.
She wrote that the ruling “trampled on” the district court’s power in a way that could have lasting consequences.
“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,” Childs wrote in her 80-page dissent.
Political and legal tensions
The case has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s broader mass deportation agenda. The administration has repeatedly criticized Boasberg, portraying him as biased and calling for his impeachment.
And, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts rejected those calls, defending judicial independence.
English (US) ·