Trump Asks for Stay Pending Appeal of Contempt Order (Update: Granted)
“The district court’s criminal contempt order instead escalates the constitutional stakes by infringing core executive prerogatives.”
President Donald Trump’s administration asked the D.C. District Court for a stay pending appeal of Judge James Boasberg’s threat of criminal contempt charges.
“The district court’s criminal contempt order instead escalates the constitutional stakes by infringing core executive prerogatives,” the administration wrote. “The Supreme Court has already intervened once, vacating the district court’s March 15, 2025 temporary restraining orders (TROs) and requiring that any further challenges to detention and removal under the Alien Enemies Act proceed in Texas, where plaintiffs are in custody.”
4/ Introductory sentence really is nub of case & what Judge Boasberg, blinded with anger, ignored. Given a) no jurisdiction; b) no basis to certify class; c) SCOTUS vacated; and d) order was not clear, there was no sanctionable, willful contempt. pic.twitter.com/xwwnmxlXT1
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 18, 2025
Last month, the Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) banning the government from flying the illegal aliens to El Salvador, citing the Alien Enemies Act.
The TRO came as the planes had already departed from the airport.
The Supreme Court vacated Boasberg’s TRO, finding the venue improper for the case since it was one for Habeas Corpus.
The case should be handled in a Texas court.
Boasberg said SCOTUS’s decision “does not excuse the Government’s violation.”
The administration insisted it complied with the TROs:
Worse, the district court is putting the Executive Branch to these unconstitutional choices to cure a nonexistent case of criminal contempt. Defendants fully complied with the TROs the district court issued, and certainly did not flout any clear, unambiguous command. The court enjoined the Executive Branch from “removing” certain aliens under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). Thereafter, the Executive undisputedly stopped removing aliens from the United States under that Act. The district court now reasons that “remove” meant legal removal (i.e., transferring custody) not physical removal (i.e., moving from U.S. territory). That is legally wrong—but even the court recognized the meaning of “remove” was at least ambiguous, and contempt cannot lie based on a supposedly wrong reading of a facially ambiguous order.
Margot Cleveland, who has done a great job documenting all these cases, pointed out that the meaning of “remove” is a strong argument for Trump’s administration
“Remove” means “remove” from American territory, which did not happen after the TRO.
This is another biggie: “Third, the district court referred to its oral statements at the hearing directing counsel to ‘inform’ his clients that ‘any plane … that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States.’”
Uh oh. The written order is what matters:
Indeed, under black-letter law across multiple circuits, Defendants had to treat the written order as governing. “Oral statements are not injunctions,” so “[a] judge who proclaims ‘I enjoin you’ and does not follow up with an injunction [in writing] has done nothing.” Bates v. Johnson, 901 F.2d 1424, 1427 (7th Cir. 1990) (Easterbrook, J.). Rule 65(d) provides that a TRO or injunction “must … state the reasons why it issued,” “state its terms specifically,” and “describe in reasonable detail—and not by referring to the complaint or other document—the act or acts restrained or required.” Those requirements “contemplate[] … a written order.” Lau v. Meddaugh, 229 F.3d 624, 633 (2d Cir. 1976) (emphasis added). Accordingly, “[i]f an injunction is not recorded in writing, the defendant is under no judicial compulsion.” Landmark Legal Found. v. EPA, 272 F. Supp. 2d 70, 83 (D.D.C. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Hispanics United v. Village of Addison, 248 F.3d 617, 621 (7th Cir. 2001) (“[O]ral statements … under Rule 65(d) have no legal effect.”). “Where the record includes both oral and written rulings,” the “written opinion” is what matters. PlayMakers LLC v. ESPN, Inc., 376 F.3d 894, 897 (9th Cir. 2004).
The administration argued that the contempt order would force the government to choose between two unconstitutional options:
- prosecute the Executive Branch’s own officials, in contravention of obvious separation of powers principles that prohibit the Judiciary from turning the Executive Branch’s powers of prosecution against itself.
- the government must successfully persuade or force El Salvador to release and return aliens in its custody—unconstitutionally seizing foreign-relations powers.
The administration also argued that “purging” of contempt doesn’t make any sense because it is criminal contempt and not civil:
Alternatively, the district court’s contempt order gives the government just one option “to purge their contempt”: the United States must “assert[] custody of the individuals who were removed” on March 15, 2025. Op.42-43. That avenue lacks any legal basis. Inviting the government to “purge” contempt makes no sense in the context of criminal contempt, which is designed to punish rather than induce compliance. United States v. Perry, 116 F.3d 952, 956 (1st Cir. 1997).
Again, SCOTUS vacated the TRO.
Therefore, it is “improper” to force “the government to successfully execute foreign diplomacy” and crosses the boundary into “the President’s core foreign affairs power.”
“The only way the government could ‘purge’ is by gaining custody of the Tren de Aragua terrorists being held by El Salvador through negotiations with that foreign sovereign,” claimed the administration.
Trump’s administration concluded the Court should grant it mandamus relief:
As explained above, the Government’s right to relief in this case is “clear and indisputable.” The contempt order dangerously intrudes on core executive prerogatives over foreign affairs and prosecutorial discretion, presenting a classic case for mandamus to maintain the Constitution’s separation of powers.
UPDATE
JUST IN: D.C. Circuit halts Judge James Boasberg's plan for contempt-related proceedings against Trump administration in case involving deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador prison. 2-1, Judge Pillard dissents. Doc: https://t.co/9jrw3CZ6r3 Earlier: https://t.co/rJzJoEuNU5
— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) April 18, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Boasberg seems so out of control that his Circuit’s Judicial Council better get him under control pronto! What is up with the DC Circuit and DC District anyways? I always thought they were the worst courts in the US, but BoAssberg is certainly doing his damndest to prove that.
Attorney Robert Barnes says “D.C.” stands for “District of Corruption.”
I thought the 9th circuit court of appeals in SF California was the worst. They are always getting over turned. Perhaps DC or SDNY has overtaken them. I’m sure I’m messing up the court hierarchies here so someone can straighten them out for me.
The administration has filed a clear and cogent argument against Boasberg’s tantrum. Which is why I fully expect the DC Circuit to embarrass themselves again and deny any relief. One can only hope some reforms and accountability will come to the federal judiciary, but I’m not exactly hopeful.
It’s a joke. I keep half expecting to see things like “because the President has ignored the court, he should be summarily executed by any persons in a position to do so, and no person will be penalised for such an act.
Apparently Judge James Boasberg is a progressive political activist cosplaying as a judge. If the rumors of conflict of interest have any basis, once this current storm passes, I think he’ll wish he has just taken the L and slithered away. Latisha James is learning that lesson now.
Something official has to happen to him. Otherwise he’ll just keep on trucking and enjoying his unchecked power as a US district judge. Expecting shame or remorse is pointless, it’s just a way of making us feel better and lessening the urgency of official sanction for this bad actor.
If this were a conservative judge ruling against some liberal pet project, what would happen? He or she would be doxxed, a ragged band of useless miscreants would be on his lawn 24/7, singing their stupid union reject songs, blowing airhorns from 1 to 5 in the morning, trying to blind people with lasers and having gourmet dinners delivered by George Soros. Among other things that I am not devious enough to think of.
So what do we do… Not a damn thing. We need a national divorce.
Katherine Boasberg, the judge’s daughter, works for a far-left organization called Partners for Justice, which actively opposes “mass incarceration” of violent criminals and strongly advocates against deporting illegals, including violent felons. Notably, Katherine Boasberg’s bio includes pronouns, further solidifying her affiliation with the Left.
A major tell when nominating judges is what their relatives are into. It may not be fair and it may not be indicative of the judge’s values but what else do we have to go on. It’s not as if they will honestly reveal their views and opinions now. Perhaps they never did.
By all means, judge a person by the political positions of their children. Their are millions of children of conservative parents who turned out liberal, and millions of children of liberal parents who turned out conservative. Every child born in America has to make their way into the world on their own.
That’s not what he said. Of course you would misrepresent. There are certainly cases where bias arises. Even someone with TDS should be able to concede that. Sad!
But JR isn’t just someone with TDS. He is a man with a muslim heart surgeon and stage 142 TDS who appears to stalk me and downclick my posts regardless of what they contain. He’s also from Iowa don’t you know, and loves him some windpower. I bet he is a barrel of fun in the caucuses there.
Insipid pabulum.
I wouldn’t normally judge a person by their kids either other than their fitness as a parent but even that can be dicey as some kids are just out of control and adult kids do what they want but a Federal Judge needs all appearance of conflict far away from him. Boasburg’s conflict of interest in both his wife and child are just too close and his actions are questionable at best.
The meet and great with the pending in laws is always eye opening
The FISA judge played his cards long ago. For that case alone, as he looked the other way, he should have been required to recuse.
How DARE any lowly judge question KING orange HArvey.
He is a selfless patriot ( ahem …1/6) trying to rescue us from the carnage brought upon us by Biden ( ahem….record dow, record job creation) .
Please let this great man just do his job.
Going to the 50501 TDS nationwide protest against President Donald Trump over Easter weekend? The whole cult will be there. Make sure you get your bus fare and sign, courtesy of oligarchs your cult pretends to hate, except when your hands are stretched out. People see you for the frauds you are, through and through. Say hi to Davis Hogg, please.
And don’t forget to hook up with your fellow cultist whose TDS is only lightly less than yours. Perhaps you can give him some lessons on refining his TDS. You owe the cult no less.
“Record job creation”?
Really? That old chestnut of mis-information?
The “18 days to slow the spread” turned into several years under Biden – when his admin FINALLY stopped stepping on the neck of the economy OC there was some bounce back of SOME lost jobs being revived.
NOT “created”, just finally allowed to return.
Too late for the many many businesses bankrupted and workers impoverished by his (unnecessary) throttling of the economy.
Unnecessary – as shown by the Covid results when compared between states (and countries) that differed in the severity of their response.
Fauci not only lied about his not facilitating the creation and spread of COVID, he lied about what was necessary to do about it vs what was intelligent to do about it. And (puppet) Biden et Alia followed his Bad Advice / Orders long past all common sense or decency.
Say hello to JR for us.
K thx bye
I say that the sooner a crazed tyrant and moron like bozoberg demonstrates the validity of of the executive branch and particularly the chief executive having literal and figurative agency that is superior to district courts, the better.
Between this and the Garcia thing, what better cases could illustrate the rectitude of ignoring the blatant lawlessness of biased lowly District judges.
He convicted people on the obstruction of an official proceeding charges when the Supreme Court found them to be invalid, the Supreme Court found he asserted jurisdiction where he had none, created a class where there was none, and used the wrong category of applicable law. His daughter gets paid by people who praise His rulings. He maliciously attended Trump’s arraignment in DC. He enabled and approved illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of trump and his campaign. Literally this guy is a criminal and he needs to Leticia James treatment.
He needs some treatment, not sure your on the right path however
So if Biden had lost in court, actively insulted the court, and declared the court would be resisted, and then not appealed and ignored the court you would be fine with it?
It is time to stop being delusional. The DOJ declaring it will not obey the order is the definition of contempt.
The Supreme Court told the administration it has to facilitate the return.
That was a 9-0 decision.
This really has to stop being a case.
You can’t ignore a court order bring him back, imprison him if you have evidence.
Trump really has to end this before a special prosecutor ruins his second term.
He could be kept in prison in America, A court said no sending him to El Salvador. That is the end of it. The principle of…..actually there is no principle. Courts are part of our system of law. If a court says no it is time to appeal not ignore.
You can ignore a court order to do something that isn’t in your power, such as bringing someone who is in the custody of a foreign sovereign. You can also ignore a court order that purports to order the president to conduct negotiations with a foreign sovereign, and what position he must take in those negotiations.