Appeals Court Halts Boasberg Contempt Probe Over Trump Deportation Dispute

A divided federal appeals panel ordered an end to the lower court’s inquiry into alleged defiance of a deportation order tied to the Alien Enemies Act.

By yourNEWS Media Newsroom

A federal appeals court on Tuesday directed Judge James Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt investigation into the Trump administration, ruling that the inquiry should not proceed in connection with deportation actions taken under the Alien Enemies Act.

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that Boasberg’s probe was “intrusive” and ordered it brought to an end, according to the panel’s ruling issued in the case.

The majority opinion was supported by Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, while Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented.

The dispute stems from a temporary restraining order issued in March by Boasberg, which sought to block the deportation of Venezuelan nationals suspected of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration proceeded with certain deportation flights despite the order, leading Boasberg to consider contempt proceedings.

In a separate 46-page opinion, Boasberg stated there was probable cause to believe the administration had engaged in willful defiance of the court’s directive, which he said could constitute criminal contempt. The judge also signaled he would continue with hearings and consider measures that could extend into privileged communications, as referenced in a prior decision where he indicated he was not backing off.

The appellate court’s ruling follows earlier actions in the case, including a prior administrative stay that temporarily halted the contempt proceedings while the matter was under review.

According to disclosures by the Department of Justice, the deportation flights in question were authorized in March by Kristi Noem despite the emergency order issued by the district court.

The appellate decision brings an immediate halt to Boasberg’s inquiry, marking the latest development in a legal dispute over the scope of executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration enforcement actions conducted under wartime statutory provisions.