Appeals Court Slaps Down Judge Boasberg

This is a pretty big win for the Trump administration. In a 2-1 decision an Appeals Court has terminated Judge Boasberg’s attempt to hold the administration in contempt.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg cannot move forward with possible contempt proceedings against the Trump administration…

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, two Trump appointees on the majority-Democrat bench, sided with the Trump administration Friday in blocking Boasberg’s contempt motion from moving forward. 

Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. 

The 2-1 ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the full court to be heard en banc, where the Democrat-majority bench is seen as more favorable to the plaintiffs, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.

In case you’ve forgotten the details here, back in March Judge Boasberg issued orders that no migrants be deported under the Alien Enemies Act. However, his verbal orders and written orders different in both timing and details.

Judge Boasberg’s initial order was issued on March 15, shortly after he received an urgent request from lawyers representing five Venezuelan migrants to block Mr. Trump if he invoked a wartime authority, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport them and others without notice or a hearing.

When Judge Boasberg convened a hearing at 5 p.m., the government was in the process of loading more than 200 other Venezuelans onto planes. At 6:48 p.m., the judge verbally ordered the government not to deport anyone under the Alien Enemies Act and to bring back any planes that had taken off. Shortly after, he ordered the government not to remove the Venezuelan detainees but left out the explicit requirement for airborne planes to turn around.

Despite Judge Boasberg’s order, the planes flew to El Salvador, where the Venezuelans were taken to a maximum-security prison. When the judge asked why on March 17, the government argued it had complied with his written order, which they claimed superseded the verbal one.

Unsatisfied with the government’s refusal to turn the planes around, Judge Boasberg issued a ruling in April that the Trump administration was in danger of being held in contempt of court for violating his orders.

US District Judge James Boasberg ruled Wednesday that “probable cause exists” to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his orders in mid-March halting the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members…

“The Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt,” Boasberg wrote in a 46-page ruling detailing his decision.

“The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions,” he added. “None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

But there’s one more wrinkle to this story because after Judge Boasberg put his temporary restraining order in place (in March) the Supreme Court subsequently vacated that TRO. Boasberg addressed this in his April ruling.

One might nonetheless ask how this inquiry into compliance is able to proceed at all given that the Supreme Court vacated the TRO after the events in question. That Court’s later determination that the TRO suffered from a legal defect, however, does not excuse the Government’s violation. Instead, it is a foundational legal precept that every judicial order “must be obeyed” — no matter how “erroneous” it “may be” — until a court reverses it. If a party chooses to disobey the order — rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process — such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order.

So his TRO was wrongly ordered but the Trump administration should have obeyed it anyway until it was vacated. But at least some lawyers at the time argued this was a different situation since it involved a dispute between branches of government.

Lots coming today from Judge Boasberg’s opinion after I have a chance to review it in detail.

One clear issue I see coming;

Yes, there is much SCOTUS case law about litigants being required to comply with Court orders — even if erroneous — until they are reversed.

NONE of…

— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) April 16, 2025

Yes, there is much SCOTUS case law about litigants being required to comply with Court orders — even if erroneous — until they are reversed.

NONE of that case law deals with a contest between two branches of the federal government where the Exec. has been dragged into Court without jurisdiction, the court does not appropriately establish that it has jurisdiction, and the court then issues an unlawful order directing the Executive branch to act in a particular manner.

SCOTUS is going to need to defuse this bomb that Judge Boasberg has started the timer on.

We haven’t gone that far yet but the bomb has been defused, at least for now, by the Appeals Court panel. However, the full court could reverse that and if so we’ll then likely see this go to the Supreme Court. One way or another this is over.