Appeals Court Blocks Contempt Proceedings Against Trump Officials in Alien Enemies Act Deportations

A Battle Over Power and Process

A divided panel of the D.C. Circuit on Friday overturned a ruling by Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg that found probable cause to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials. The contempt finding was related to the March deportation of over 130 Venezuelan migrants to a Salvadoran prison under the Alien Enemies Act, despite Boasberg’s emergency order to halt the flights.

In their 2‑1 ruling, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao—both appointed by President Trump—wrote that Judge Boasberg’s actions raised “troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy.” They argued that the judiciary’s authority was at its “lowest ebb” when reviewing national security claims made by the executive branch.

Dissenting View: Judicial Authority Undermined

Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented sharply, defending Boasberg’s emergency intervention. She noted that the district judge was called on a weekend evening to decide whether to pause deportations that would send detained migrants to indefinite confinement in one of the world’s harshest prisons. Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stop the operation until a proper hearing could be held.

According to the dissent, the Trump administration went ahead anyway, claiming—without independent court review—that the migrants were gang members affiliated with Tren de Aragua, despite them being in ICE custody and lacking any verified government ties.

Judge Pillard warned that by vacating the entire contempt order, the appeals court majority was eliminating a lawful avenue to determine accountability. “The rule of law means those principles apply to officials in the executive branch just as they apply to all of us,” she wrote.

Final Debate Over Relief and Oversight

Judge Pillard also criticized Judge Rao’s reasoning for vacating the entire order, including a portion that required the administration to name those responsible. Rao had claimed the “purge” provision placed the government in an unlawful dilemma. Pillard disagreed, writing: “Even if I were to agree with the entirety of Judge Rao’s analysis in support of mandamus, I cannot see how it supports an order that does more than that.”

Her dissent argues that the ruling strips district courts of necessary tools to ensure compliance with judicial orders, particularly in cases where executive officials are accused of acting outside legal bounds.

Broader Implications

The decision may significantly limit lower courts’ ability to hold federal officials accountable when deportations or national security actions are disputed. Legal scholars say the case sets a precedent where executive claims—if rooted in vague assertions of foreign threat—could override judicial checks unless clarified by future rulings.

The court’s opinion also comes at a politically charged moment, as the Department of Justice reportedly filed a misconduct complaint against Boasberg over his handling of the deportation order, while critics accuse the panel of undermining judicial independence.

Full Court Ruling

The full D.C. Circuit ruling is available here.

Follow Virginia Times for regular news updates. Stay informed with the latest headlines, breaking stories, and in-depth reporting from around the world.