WASHINGTON — A federal judge abused his authority in pursuing contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials for removing alleged Venezuelan gang members from the United States in violation of a court order, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was split 2-1, with two Trump appointees in the majority and an Obama appointee dissenting.
The decision overturns Washington-based Chief Judge James Boasberg’s finding of probable cause that officials could be held in criminal contempt.
President Donald Trump and his allies have been particularly critical of Boasberg, previously widely respected in Washington, saying he should be impeached and filing a misconduct complaint against him. The administration has been heavily critical of other judges too and has faced similar claims of failing to comply with court orders.
All three judges on Friday wrote separate opinions to explain their reasoning.
“The district court’s order raises troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses. And it implicates an unsettled issue whether the judiciary may impose criminal contempt for violating injunctions entered without jurisdiction,” Judge Greg Katsas, one of the Trump appointees, wrote in his opinion.
In her separate opinion, Judge Neomi Rao, the other Trump appointee, said Boasberg had no authority to pursue contempt findings because the Supreme Court had in April vacated his underlying ruling against the government.
She described Boasberg’s contempt order as “especially egregious” because it implicated senior government officials. His ruling also constituted an “intrusion on the president’s foreign affairs authority,” she added.
Judge Nina Pillard, the Obama appointee, wrote in her dissent that government officials “appear to have disobeyed” Boasberg’s order.
“Our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them. That is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt,” she wrote.
The underlying dispute concerns Trump’s aggressive and unprecedented use of presidential power in invoking a rarely used 18th-century law called the Alien Enemies Act.
In March, Boasberg issued his first decision preventing the administration from deporting alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang using the Alien Enemies Act.
Critics immediately raised concerns about whether the administration had violated a verbal order from Boasberg in court that planes carrying alleged gang members turn around and return to the United States. Two flights subsequently landed in Honduras and El Salvador.
On April 7, the Supreme Court then threw out Boasberg’s original decision, saying he had followed the wrong legal process, although it made clear detainees are required to be given due process. Litigation on that point has continued in other courts.
After that, Boasberg nevertheless moved forward with contempt proceedings, which is the only matter at issue in Friday’s appeals court decision.
The case had been paused for months, leading to complaints from Democrats that the court was inappropriately delaying action on the case in part because a key figure, then-Justice Department official Emil Bove, was under consideration by the Senate for a position as a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Bove was narrowly confirmed on July 29.
During that process, whistleblowers claimed Bove had told Justice Department colleagues that the government may have to defy court orders in order to carry out its deportation plans. The Justice Department denied that Bove committed any wrongdoing.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
