DC Circuit: Ends DOJ Contempt Probe Over El Salvador Deportations

• The Justice Department is seeking to block a federal judge's criminal contempt probe into the Trump administration's alleged non-compliance with orders regarding Venezuelan migrant deportations.
• Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found probable cause that the Trump administration willfully ignored a March 2025 order to return 137 Venezuelan migrants summarily deported to El Salvador.
• The case stems from a March 2025 proclamation by President Trump, invoking the Alien Enemies Act to deport migrants designated as gang members without evidence.
• Appellate judges debated the extent of judicial contempt power against the executive branch, with some emphasizing the inherent nature of this power and others citing concerns about judicial overreach into executive deliberations.
• The D.C. Circuit's decision will establish a significant precedent on the judiciary's ability to hold executive officials accountable for defying court orders.

The D.C. Circuit's final judgment is therefore anticipated to set a crucial precedent on the scope of judicial contempt powers when exercised against government entities.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently heard arguments from the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking to halt a federal judge's criminal contempt investigation into the Trump administration's alleged defiance of court orders concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants. This ongoing legal battle centers on a March 2025 directive from Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, which mandated the return of 137 individuals summarily deported to El Salvador. Judge Boasberg had previously found probable cause that the Trump administration willfully disregarded these orders, potentially opening the door to criminal contempt proceedings, a finding that has been ended by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals since April 2025.

The controversy originated from a March 15, 2025, proclamation by then-President Donald Trump, which controversially invoked the rarely utilized Alien Enemies Act. This proclamation authorized the summary deportation of migrants, who were designated, without supporting evidence, as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) swiftly sought an emergency Saturday hearing on the very day the proclamation was issued. Despite Judge Boasberg’s subsequent order for two planes carrying migrants to either turn back or return without transferring individuals into Salvadoran custody, these instructions were reportedly ignored, and the aircraft proceeded to their destination.

To date, only one individual, Maryland resident Kilmar Ábrego García, who had been held at the Salvadoran mega-prison CECOT, has been returned. This return was facilitated by the government in what proved to be an unsuccessful attempt to pursue criminal prosecution against him. The broader case represents one of the most protracted and notable legal challenges stemming from President Trump’s second administration, highlighting significant tensions between the executive and judicial branches.

During the recent D.C. Circuit hearing, Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate contended that Chief Judge Boasberg had exceeded his authority, asserting the judge had “gone off the rails” by adopting an investigative role. Shumate argued that Boasberg's efforts to identify additional individuals beyond former-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, whom the government presented as the primary decision-maker, who could be held in contempt, constituted an overreach. The DOJ's stance, according to Shumate, was aimed at preventing a further “clash between the branches” of government, a conflict he warned would escalate if the appellate court permitted Boasberg to refer Noem or other Justice Department attorneys for prosecution.

However, several appellate judges expressed skepticism regarding the DOJ's arguments. U.S. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, an appointee of President Barack Obama, challenged Shumate’s assertion, noting that the government’s separation of powers argument appeared to rest solely on the hypothetical possibility of an executive branch official facing a contempt trial by a district court judge. Judge Patricia Millett, also an Obama appointee, reinforced this perspective, emphasizing that the principle of separation of powers operates reciprocally, not exclusively in favor of the executive branch. She underscored the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncement that the power to hold individuals in contempt is an inherent judicial authority, essential for the courts to function effectively.

Conversely, U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, voiced considerable doubt about Judge Boasberg's jurisdiction in the matter. She repeatedly referenced an April 14 split decision, in which she authored the majority opinion, finding that Judge Boasberg had abused his discretion by delving into “high-level executive branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy.” Judge Justin Walker, another Trump appointee, concurred with Rao in that original 2-1 appellate ruling, while Judge Michelle Childs, a Joe Biden appointee, dissented.

The outcome of this case before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals carries significant implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly concerning the enforcement of judicial orders in sensitive areas like immigration and national security. The appellate court's decision will clarify the extent to which federal courts can compel accountability from executive officials for non-compliance.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt warned the court that a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would severely undermine the capacity of federal courts to hold government officials responsible for disregarding judicial directives. Gelernt highlighted the government’s conduct in this specific instance as “so disrespectful to the judiciary,” cautioning that such a decision would send a “horrible message” regarding the enforceability of court orders. The D.C. Circuit's final judgment is therefore anticipated to set a crucial precedent on the scope of judicial contempt powers when exercised against government entities.

This case will clarify the extent to which federal courts can hold executive branch officials accountable for non-compliance with judicial orders, particularly in sensitive areas like immigration and national security. Lawyers should monitor the D.C. Circuit's ruling for precedent on judicial contempt powers against the government.

Source: Original reporting via CN