A federal appeals court has stepped in to shield the Trump administration from overreaching judicial activism. On April 18, 2025, a divided panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a temporary halt to contempt proceedings launched by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
The Hill reported that the D.C. Circuit’s ruling pauses Boasberg’s contempt actions, which stemmed from March 15, 2025, deportation flights, while the court reviews the government’s appeal.
This move highlights the ongoing tension between judicial overreach and the executive’s authority to enforce immigration policy. It’s a critical moment for President Trump’s efforts to secure the border.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, initiated contempt proceedings after claiming the administration showed “willful disregard” for his order.
His ruling on April 16, 2025, found probable cause to hold the government in contempt for not stopping the March flights. The judge’s actions reflect a broader pattern of liberal judges obstructing conservative policies.
The contempt issue traces back to Boasberg’s March 2025 order blocking Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act.
He aimed to stop deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador’s megaprison. The Supreme Court later overturned Boasberg’s order, affirming migrants’ rights to judicial review where they’re detained.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Boasberg pressed forward with contempt proceedings. He argued his order held weight before the higher court intervened. This persistence underscores a troubling trend of judges clinging to authority even after being overruled.
The D.C. Circuit’s April 18 decision, split 2-1, favored the Trump administration. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both Trump appointees, backed the halt, while Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented. Pillard argued there was “no ground” for the stay, revealing the partisan divide in the judiciary.
The appeals court’s ruling came as Boasberg wrapped up an emergency hearing. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) requested a block on new deportation flights to El Salvador. The ACLU’s relentless legal challenges aim to undermine Trump’s immigration enforcement.
During the hearing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign clarified that no flights were scheduled through April 19, 2025.
However, he noted the government’s right to deport individuals on that date. This stance reflects the administration’s commitment to upholding immigration laws.
Boasberg declined to block the new deportations, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling as limiting his power. “I just don’t think I have the power,” he admitted, acknowledging the boundaries set by higher courts. Yet, his reluctance to fully step back raises questions about judicial impartiality.
The ACLU, undeterred, has appeals pending with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. Their efforts signal a broader strategy to tie up Trump’s deportation policies in endless litigation. This tactic burdens taxpayers and delays justice for law-abiding citizens.
Lee Gelernt, an ACLU attorney, expressed frustration, saying, “We feel stuck.” His comments highlight the left’s exasperation as courts begin to uphold Trump’s authority. The administration’s resolve to enforce immigration laws remains steadfast despite these challenges.
Boasberg, while sympathetic to the ACLU’s “conundrum,” admitted his hands were tied. His acknowledgment of their “valid” concerns betrays a bias toward liberal causes. Conservative Americans see this as another example of judges favoring open-border policies.
The D.C. Circuit’s order emphasizes it’s not a final ruling on the appeal’s merits. Still, it’s a win for those who value the rule of law over judicial activism. The pause gives the Trump administration breathing room to pursue its immigration agenda.
For too long, liberal judges like Boasberg have hindered efforts to secure America’s borders. The appeals court’s intervention restores balance, ensuring the executive branch can act without constant judicial interference. It’s a step toward reclaiming national sovereignty.