A federal appeals court has stepped in to shut down a contentious contempt inquiry led by Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, marking a sharp turn in an already complex legal battle tied to the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act.
In a 2–1 decision, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a writ of mandamus ordering Boasberg to terminate his ongoing criminal contempt proceedings against administration officials.
The dispute stems from March 2025 deportation flights that removed suspected members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to El Salvador—flights that proceeded despite a court order that the administration interpreted differently than the judge.
Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the majority, concluded that the district court had overstepped its authority. Central to that finding was the fact that the underlying order—used as the basis for potential contempt—had already been vacated by the Supreme Court. According to the appellate panel, continuing to pursue contempt tied to a now-invalidated order raised serious separation-of-powers concerns.
The ruling emphasized that Boasberg’s inquiry had expanded beyond its original scope. What began as a narrow question—who authorized the deportation transfers—evolved into broader demands for testimony and internal deliberations within the executive branch. The court found that trajectory improper, particularly given the national security and diplomatic dimensions involved.
“The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations,” the majority wrote, describing the effort as an “abuse of discretion” and a form of judicial overreach into executive authority.
Judge Justin Walker, in a concurring opinion, focused on a key procedural detail: the difference between Boasberg’s oral and written orders. He argued that the written order ultimately governed the administration’s obligations and did not prohibit the actions taken. As a result, Walker concluded there was no clear violation that could sustain a contempt charge.
The dissent, authored by Judge J. Michelle Childs, took a different view, warning that halting the inquiry prematurely could limit judicial oversight in situations where compliance with court orders is in question.
Importantly, the appellate decision does not resolve the broader legal fight over the deportation flights themselves. That underlying case—J.G.G. v. Trump—remains active and could still return to higher courts for further review.