A federal appeals court has barred a judge from investigating whether the Trump administration violated a court order by deporting Venezuelan detainees to El Salvador instead of turning the planes around, marking the second time the same inquiry has been halted.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 Tuesday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg lacks authority to hold a contempt hearing on the March 2025 deportation flights. The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, argued that further judicial review would constitute improper interference with executive branch decisions on national security matters.
Rao and Walker emphasized that Boasberg already possesses sufficient information to rule on the matter without a contempt inquiry. They contended that the costs of additional investigation could not be remedied through later appeal, and stressed that courts must respect what they called the "paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation."
Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented sharply. She argued that Boasberg was not trying to adjudicate contempt or even refer officials for prosecution, but merely sought to understand what happened over a single weekend in March. The inquiry would examine events and potential violations of a court order, she wrote.
This marks the second time Boasberg has been stopped from pursuing contempt proceedings related to the flights conducted under the Alien Enemies Act. Last August, the same appeals court blocked an earlier contempt order, with Rao calling Boasberg's approach "especially egregious" because it targeted senior government officials. That ruling also cited the president's foreign affairs authority as a justification.
The panel composition reflects deep ideological splits on the bench. Rao and Walker were both nominated by President Donald Trump during his first administration, while Childs was nominated by President Joe Biden.
Author Sarah Mitchell: "Two judicial defeats on the same question suggest the appellate court has drawn a firm line on executive deference in immigration enforcement, regardless of whether lower courts see potential legal violations."
Comments