A federal appeals court just dropped a bombshell by overturning a contempt ruling against Trump administration officials over deportation flights to El Salvador.
Politico reported that in a 2-1 decision on Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit scrapped a lower court’s finding that there was probable cause to hold these officials in criminal contempt for ignoring an order to halt deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
This saga kicked off in March when U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, an Obama appointee, took center stage by handling the first lawsuit challenging Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to a Salvadoran megaprison.
At a heated Saturday hearing that same weekend, Boasberg demanded the administration turn back any planes mid-flight carrying out these deportations. That order, however, was later reversed by the Supreme Court.
Boasberg didn’t stop there, accusing the administration of blatantly ignoring his directive and pushing for contempt proceedings against officials. It’s no secret that tensions between the judiciary and executive branch have flared over this issue. One has to wonder if this was less about justice and more about a power play.
The D.C. Circuit stepped in with an administrative stay in April, hitting the pause button on Boasberg’s contempt efforts without a clear explanation.
This delay dragged on for months, far beyond the typical short-term nature of such stays. Critics might argue this gave certain officials a convenient shield from scrutiny.
Speaking of scrutiny, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats from Rhode Island and Connecticut, respectively, weren’t shy about slamming this prolonged stay.
“It is hard to see why an administrative stay of this length... would ever be justified,” they wrote in a pointed letter to their chief judge. Their implication that it might have protected Emil Bove during his recent Senate confirmation for a 3rd Circuit judgeship smells of partisan posturing to some observers.
The appeals court panel itself was divided, with Trump-appointed Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas forming the majority to overturn Boasberg’s finding.
Rao didn’t mince words, writing, “The order forces a coequal branch to choose between capitulating to an unlawful judicial order and subjecting its officials to a dubious prosecution.” That’s a sharp jab at judicial overreach, and it lands with the weight of constitutional principle.
On the other side, Obama-appointed Judge Cornelia Pillard dissented, praising Boasberg’s restraint with, “Even when faced with what reasonably appeared to him to be foot dragging, evasion... he responded with unfailing composure.”
Her defense of Boasberg feels like a pat on the back for a progressive ally. But does it ignore the broader question of whether the judiciary should be meddling in executive policy at this level?
Pillard doubled down, stating, “The majority does an exemplary judge a grave disservice by overstepping its bounds to upend his effort to vindicate the judicial authority.”
That’s a noble sentiment, but it sidesteps whether that “judicial authority” was overstepped in the first place. Many conservatives might argue the executive’s right to manage deportations shouldn’t be handcuffed by a single judge’s gavel.
Adding fuel to the fire, Justice Department whistleblower Erez Reuveni dropped troubling claims about officials like Emil Bove, who was then in a top Justice Department role, discussing defiance of court orders on these deportation flights. Reuveni also pointed fingers at attorney Drew Ensign for allegedly dodging questions about flight schedules. “He knows they are being removed,” Reuveni texted a coworker, hinting at deliberate obfuscation.
That coworker fired back with, “He knows there are plans for AEA removals within the next 24 hours.” Another added, “It’s a question if Drew gets out without a sanction.” These exchanges paint a picture of internal chaos—or perhaps calculated pushback against what some might call judicial overreach.
Bove, for his part, played it cool during his confirmation hearings, saying, “I’ve certainly said things encouraging litigators at the department to fight hard for valid positions.”
He also admitted to conveying “the importance of the upcoming operation” regarding the flights. It’s a tightrope walk—defending policy without admitting to skirting the law—and one that likely resonates with those skeptical of activist judges.
Meanwhile, the core case over Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act lingers in Boasberg’s courtroom, though its trajectory is murky after the deported migrants were released from a Salvadoran megaprison and moved to Venezuela in a massive prisoner swap.
The American Civil Liberties Union, representing these individuals, told Boasberg on Thursday that many Venezuelans still want to return to the U.S. and pursue their claims.
Boasberg himself remains a central figure, having written, “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch.” That’s a stern lecture, but it begs the question: Should the judiciary be dictating deportation policy at all? To many on the right, this feels like a classic case of progressive overreach dressed up as constitutional duty.