In a striking victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has put the brakes on a lower court’s attempt to hold the administration in contempt over a contentious deportation policy.
The 2-1 ruling on Friday blocked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg from pursuing contempt proceedings against the administration for allegedly defying an emergency order related to the deportation of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law.
This legal showdown kicked off in March when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act, a statute from 1798, to swiftly deport over 250 Venezuelan nationals to a maximum-security facility in El Salvador known as CECOT.
Judge Boasberg, responding to the rapid deportations, issued a late-night temporary restraining order on March 15, halting the use of this old law for such summary actions.
He didn’t stop there—Boasberg demanded the immediate return of the affected migrants to U.S. soil, a directive the administration conspicuously sidestepped.
Despite the order, hundreds of these migrants were sent to CECOT and stayed there until late last month, when 252 were moved to Venezuela in a prisoner exchange deal between the U.S. and Venezuela.
By April, Boasberg had seen enough, ruling there was “probable cause” to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, accusing the administration of a “willful disregard” for his mandate.
“Willful disregard” sounds serious, but let’s be real—navigating emergency orders in a crisis isn’t exactly a walk in the park, and the administration’s pushback might just reflect a broader frustration with judicial overreach.
Speaking of pushback, the Trump administration has been locking horns with judges for months over blocked executive orders, and last month even tried to have Boasberg reassigned—though legal minds doubt that’ll stick.
Enter the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, teamed up for a 2-1 majority to halt Boasberg’s contempt plans, with Obama-appointed Judge Nina Pillard dissenting.
Katsas didn’t mince words, stating, “The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position.” But here’s the kicker—difficulty doesn’t justify overstepping, and the appeals court seems to agree that contempt was a bridge too far.
He added that the government’s initial actions were “clearly and indisputably” not criminal, a polite way of saying Boasberg might have jumped the gun on this one.
Looking ahead, this ruling isn’t the final word—appeals to the full D.C. Circuit for an en banc review or even a Supreme Court showdown are on the horizon, especially with a Democrat-heavy bench potentially favoring the plaintiffs.
Meanwhile, Boasberg continues to demand updates on the 252 migrants involved in the exchange, and questions linger about how many had pending asylum claims or protections against deportation—details the administration hasn’t clarified.
At the end of the day, this saga underscores a deeper tension between executive action and judicial oversight, and while the Trump administration dodged a bullet here, the fight over deportation policy is far from over. Turns out, governing by emergency order is a tightrope walk—and sometimes, the courts are waiting to cut the rope.