An appeals court smacked down on Tuesday a judge’s sweeping attempt to investigate top Trump administration officials as a “clear abuse of discretion.”
Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, planned to hold contempt hearings to assess whether officials willfully ignored his order to return alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang to the United States, even if it meant turning planes around.
“The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy,” D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote in the court’s 2-1 opinion.
“These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court’s order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody,” Rao continued. “Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper.”
Despite the Supreme Court vacating his initial order blocking deportation because it was filed in the wrong venue, Boasberg found in April 2025 that “probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt” for violating it.
The Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a petition in December asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to halt Boasberg’s inquiry, citing the “strong appearance that the district judge is engaged in a pattern of retaliation and harassment, and has developed too strong a bias to preside over this matter impartially.”
In a concurring opinion, Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker noted officials never violated any order, arguing Boasberg’s narrower written order superseded his initial oral order.
“There is no allegation in this case that the Government used the Proclamation to remove anyone not already removed when the written order was issued,” he said. “So as far as we know, the class members not already removed by then started the day in Texas, ended the day in Texas, and (a year later) still have not been ‘remov[ed] . . . pursuant to the Proclamation” — even if the Government would very much like to have long-ago removed them.’”
Judge Julianna Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, wrote in her dissent that “mandamus is inappropriate here because the Government may not be coming to this court with clean hands.”
“It is because of the utmost respect I have for the trial court and the gift of our system of governance that I believe that mandamus should not be used to question a trial court’s inherent authority to protect its courtroom and the rule of law,” Childs wrote. “Mandamus, therefore, should only issue on days where it is needed to restore, and not upset, the balance of power in our government. But today is not one of those days.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
