Appeals court temporarily halts contempt inquiry over deportation flights
A recent ruling from a divided panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has put a temporary halt to District Court Judge James Boasberg’s efforts to investigate whether the Trump administration committed criminal contempt. This investigation stemmed from the administration’s refusal to turn around two deportation flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members who were sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
The 2-1 ruling, with dissent from Obama-appointed judge Nina Pillard, paused Boasberg’s determination of probable cause that the administration defied his orders to return the flights. The court has mandated a deadline for both the petitioners and the government to file their replies by April 23 and April 25, respectively.
Judge Boasberg had previously found probable cause that the Trump administration acted in contempt of court by ignoring his order to bring back the deportation flights. As a remedy, he directed the administration to grant the deported individuals the right to challenge their detention through habeas proceedings. Failure to comply could lead to a criminal contempt case.
If necessary, Boasberg stated that he would identify individuals who acted in contempt through sworn statements, depositions, or live testimony. He also mentioned the possibility of appointing a government attorney or an independent attorney to prosecute a criminal contempt case.
Despite a recent Supreme Court decision allowing the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg maintained that the administration still violated his order during the three weeks it was in effect. He emphasized the importance of upholding judicial orders, stating that allowing officials to willfully disobey court rulings would undermine the integrity of the Constitution.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the complex interplay between branches of government and the importance of upholding the rule of law. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch.
