DC Circuit Tosses Judge’s Contempt Order Against Trump Officials in Deportation Flights Case
August 11, 2025 — In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a contempt order issued by Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg against Trump administration officials, marking a significant victory for the administration in a contentious dispute over deportation flights to El Salvador. The ruling, issued on August 8, 2025, overturned Boasberg’s April finding of probable cause for criminal contempt, which stemmed from the administration’s alleged defiance of a court order to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
Case Background
The controversy began in March 2025, when President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute, to expedite the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, identified as part of the Tren de Aragua syndicate, to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). On March 15, Judge Boasberg, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) during a Saturday hearing, directing the administration to turn around any airborne planes carrying these migrants back to the U.S. The administration proceeded with the deportations, arguing the planes were already outside U.S. airspace when the oral order was issued.
In April, Boasberg found probable cause to hold administration officials in criminal contempt, asserting their actions showed “willful disregard” for his order. He argued that the Constitution does not tolerate deliberate disobedience of judicial directives, particularly by executive branch officials sworn to uphold it. The administration appealed, seeking a writ of mandamus—a rare judicial order to correct a lower court’s error—claiming Boasberg’s order overstepped judicial authority and encroached on executive functions.
The D.C. Circuit’s Ruling
In an unsigned opinion, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, granted the writ of mandamus, vacating Boasberg’s contempt order. Katsas, in a concurring opinion, described the dispute as an “extraordinary, ongoing confrontation between the Executive and Judicial Branches.” He argued that the TRO’s ambiguous use of the term “removing” could reasonably be interpreted as either barring expulsion from U.S. territory or surrendering custody to a foreign sovereign. Given this ambiguity, Katsas wrote, “the TRO cannot support a criminal-contempt conviction here,” as the administration’s actions did not clearly violate the order at the time.
Judge Rao, in her concurrence, called Boasberg’s order a “clear abuse of discretion,” emphasizing that the Supreme Court had vacated the TRO in April due to procedural errors, stripping the district court of authority to enforce it through contempt proceedings. She further criticized the order as an “egregious” overreach into the President’s foreign affairs powers, arguing it improperly pressured the administration to retrieve deportees from El Salvador.
Judge Cornelia Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented, defending Boasberg’s actions. She argued that “the rule of law depends on obedience to judicial orders,” and the administration’s apparent defiance warranted contempt proceedings to uphold judicial authority. “Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity,” Pillard wrote.
Broader Context and Reactions
The ruling follows months of tension between the Trump administration and the judiciary, exacerbated by the administration’s aggressive use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members without standard due process. The Supreme Court’s April decision to vacate Boasberg’s TRO, citing improper venue, noted that detainees retained due process rights, but the deported migrants were later transferred to Venezuela in a July prisoner swap, complicating ongoing litigation led by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the ruling on X, calling it a “MAJOR victory” and labeling Boasberg’s order “failed judicial overreach at its worst.” ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt, representing the deportees, expressed strong disagreement, stating, “Even DOJ’s own lawyers have now stated publicly that they understood that they were not supposed to hand over these men to El Salvador.” The ACLU is considering further legal options.
Implications
The decision underscores the judiciary’s reluctance to impose criminal contempt on executive actions in legally ambiguous circumstances, particularly when orders are later overturned. It also highlights ongoing debates over the separation of powers, with the majority cautioning against judicial overreach into foreign policy. However, Pillard’s dissent signals concerns that such rulings could embolden administrations to skirt court orders, risking erosion of judicial authority.
The underlying case regarding the Alien Enemies Act deportations continues in Boasberg’s court, with its future uncertain following the migrants’ transfer to Venezuela. The ruling may prompt further scrutiny of how courts enforce compliance with temporary orders in fast-moving immigration disputes.
For more details, see the D.C. Circuit’s opinion or coverage from Law&Crime and CBS News.