DC Circuit Tells Boasberg to Stop Criminal Contempt Inquiry Into Deportation Flights
“The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion…”
Shorter DC Court of Appeals to Judge James Boasberg: Stop the witch hunt.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit voted 2-1 to end Boasberg’s criminal contempt inquiry into supposed violations of his orders by President Donald Trump’s administration to stop deportation flights.
It’s simple: “Because the TRO [temporary restraining order] did not clearly or specifically prohibit the transfer of custody, it cannot support the ongoing criminal contempt investigation.”
After all, criminal contempt can only happen “for the violation of an order that is clear and specific.”
The court issued a writ of mandamus, which is a rare tool that permanently ends proceedings.
This is the second one in this case. I’m not kidding. More on that later.
The opinion starts off hot (emphasis mine):
The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court’s order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody. Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper. In these circumstances, mandamus is appropriate to prevent the district court from assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction that encroaches on the autonomy of the Executive Branch.
Let’s go back to last year when this fiasco started.I hope I included all the information.
On March 15, 2025, Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to pause deportations, prompting the administration to ask the Supreme Court to vacate the decision.
The Supreme Court did just that in April 2025, ruling that the case in question was held in the wrong venue.
Despite the ruling, Boasberg claimed he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for ignoring his orders.
Boasberg said SCOTUS’s decision “does not excuse the Government’s violation.”
The administration immediately asked for a stay pending appeal of Boasberg’s threat.
The DC District Court granted the stay.
The DC Circuit then issued its first writ of mandamus in August 2025.
Did the district court listen? No. The court claimed it could continue with the case “because only one judge found the probable cause order fatally ambiguous.”
The court ordered the administration to provide the names of those believed to have played a role “in the decision to transfer custody.”
The administration complied, but it wasn’t enough. The DC Circuit criticized the court for moving the goalposts by proposing “further judicial investigation into whether the Secretary’s ‘decision was a willful violation’ of the TRO.”
Also, the further probe “is an ‘interfer[ence] with a coequal branch’s ability to discharge its constitutional responsibilities,’ an interference that cannot be remedied by a later appeal.”
I leave you with this:
The participation of opposing counsel in the investigation of criminal contempt is similarly improper in these circumstances. Enabling interested plaintiffs to wield the sword of coercive investigation creates opportunities for “private interest to influence the discharge of public duty.” Id. at 805. Throughout this contentious litigation, plaintiffs’ counsel have made clear their desire to probe the decisionmaking of numerous senior officials at the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. See Plaintiffs’ Resp. to Nov. 24 Order at 1–2 (Nov. 25, 2025) (providing list of nine “potential witnesses” that “is not intended to be exhaustive”).
The proposed hearings anticipate airing whistleblower grievances and allowing plaintiffs’ counsel to participate. These proceedings improperly threaten an open-ended, freewheeling inquiry into Executive Branch decisionmaking on matters of national security that implicate ongoing military and diplomatic initiatives. This judicial intrusion into the autonomy of a co equal department cannot be remedied by a later appeal from a contempt conviction.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
In first with the “Judge Boasberg files injunction against First Circuit” joke.
This is welcome, of course. His impeachment and removal from the bench would be better.
Some congressman was supposed to start impeachment proceedings. Have they?
Surely you jest! A Republican with a backbone?
Almost ALL of them are invertebrates.
In other news, a herd of unicorns has been sighted.
And don’t call me Shirley.
Liberal plagerism follows:
On November 4, 2025, Articles of Impeachment were filed against Judge Boasberg for his role in Operation Arctic Frost.
U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) in writing a letter to D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan calling for the administrative suspension of Chief Judge James Boasberg while Congress considers Articles of Impeachment for abusing his judicial authority to target the Trump administration, sitting Republican Senators, and conservative organizations.
Released Documents Reveal Judges Beryl Howell and Boasberg Secretly Worked with Jack Smith to Bring Charges Against President Trump
… so this story does have legs
Boasberg can always play Lurch, in the next trashy remake/sequel of “The Adams Family.”
This Judge and many others should be impeached by the House but nothing has happened. This is a problem I find with Congress not doing their job as they are not supporting The President no matter who is The President, but in this case it is Trump. The Senate has not passed many of Trump’s picks for various positions and has made it so he cannot do vacation picks.
Impeachment is a dead end. Even if you could get it through the house, which is unlikely, it would be a guaranteed acquittal in the senate.
It is not Congress’s job to support the president. Congress does not work for the president.
The senate is under no obligation to consent to the president’s appointments.
And recess appointments are a thing of the past. The last time the supreme court considered them the majority held that they could fill vacancies that occurred before the recess, and that they could be made during a “sufficiently long” intrasessional recess, but declined to say how long is long enough, except that it was unlikely to be less than ten days.
But even if the senate (with the house’s consent) were to go on a ten-day break, or even a twenty-day break) and the president were to use it to make appointments, the Democrats would immediately challenge them and it would go back to SCOTUS, where there is almost no doubt that Canning would be overturned.
The conservative minority in that case held that appointments can only be made between congressional sessions and not during a recess in the middle of a session no matter how long it is, and also that they can only fill vacancies that occurred during that recess. Three of that minority are still on the court, and will not have changed their minds; Gorsuch would be almost certain to join them, and it’s very likely that at least one of Barrett and Kavanaugh would as well, thus giving them a majority. In addition I think Jackson would be likely to join them just to spite Trump, and I wouldn’t put it past Sotomayor to do so as well. Kagan has enough principles to stick to her vote in Canning, so she’d be one vote for Trump, but she may be the only one. At any rate, Trump would get no more than four votes, and that would be the formal end of recess appointments forever.
Pettifogging. Congress as a whole is not required to support the President, but members of the Republican Party have at least some obligation to do so.
And lack of certainty of winning is not a valid argument against attempting to right a wrong. Depriving the Republicans of a tactic simply because the Democrats abuse it is self-defeating foolishness.
It’s not about removal. Everyone knows the demonrats will vote in lockstep. It is about forcing that jack wagon to testify under oath in front of the nation. Forcing him to answer about his involvement in FISA court abuses, Article Frost and any thing else that Congress wants him to answer in front of the American people.
I’ll lend my voice to MoeHoward above me. That it won’t succeed is no excuse for not doing *what is right*.
Democrats will impeach until they are blue in the face. We’ve watched them do it.
Mr. Boasberg needs to go in front of the Senate right now.
That’s fine as a sentiment and I’d agree that when Congress is done with basics it is needed but can we get the SAVE act passed and a budget hammered out and passed before we tilt at windmills?
I’d say we can walk and chew gum at the same time, except Congress can neither walk nor chew gum.
Tuesday’s smackdown of Boasberg was a beautiful thing: “The district court’s improper and unnecessary investigation, with its shifting scope and justification, intrudes upon the Executive in a manner for which mandamus is the only adequate remedy..”
https://thefederalist.com/2026/04/14/appeals-court-torches-boasberg-for-targeting-trump-immigration-officials-clear-abuse-of-discretion/
The court found that:
1. Boasberg is full of it.
2. He needs to go back to law school
3. He committed a “clear abuse of discretion”
4. Boasberg doesn’t know his button hole from a hole in the ground
He needs to be in a jail cell.
Bottom line: we’ve had enough of Boasberg, his witch hunts, and his “clear abuse of discretion.” If he fails to comply with the DC Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling, he must be disciplined harshly, including impeachment or the threat thereof.
He would laugh at “the threat thereof”. Even actual impeachment wouldn’t affect him, since he’d be guaranteed acquittal in the senate; and the next time the Dems took the house they’d probably vote to reverse it and give him a medal.
Wasn’t Boasberg appointed to his role by Roberts? At some point, wouldn’t it make sense for Roberts to tell Boasberg to knock it off?
No, he wasn’t. Roberts has no control over the district courts. He was appointed to the court by President 0bama, with the senate’s consent (96-0).
Roberts appointed Boasberg to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in 2014
And he’s not on it any more.
That was to the FISA court.
I know there is a “supervision” structure inside the courts with the Justices at the top, but I don’t know which Justice is Boasberg supervisor? Either way I don’t believe that even in that role I don’t think they have any real disciplinary power.
I imagine Boasberg is steaming mad. He has a bit of an ego.
He probably knew what the decision was going to be weeks ago. I am sure it bruised his fragile ego, but it shouldn’t have been a surprise.
Boasberg’s anticipated defiance negative of higher court rulings is in the process of becoming governing precedent in Leftist courts as the legitimacy of our judicial system becomes less and less.
Subotai Bahadur
typo. Should be “Boasberg’s anticipated defiance of negative higher court rulings ….”
Subotai Bahadur
What part of “you had no authority ” does this retarded Nazi not get?
How did the shrink from Terminator 2 get to be a judge?
Hey now that very talented actor has done nothing to deserve being compared to Boasberg.
Given that white MAGA nationalists are the greatest threat in the USA — and we know this because Joe and Merrick told us so — it’s just inconceivable to me that we haven’t yet found a group of street stalwarts eager to give this troll some well-deserved gender-affirming care.
Bluster Berg just got a giant phallic device shoved up his intrusive a$s.
And what consequences does this “judge” Boasberg suffer?
Absolutely none.
D’s will continue to cherry pick him for case after case on anything political, to get an Un-Constitutional and/or illegal opinion to get headlines for political gain and to obstruct lawful actions being taken by the Administration.
I like how the same half dozen or so hyper partisan political activist “judges” seem to “randomly” get assigned to virtually all of the Trump cases, while the remaining 670+ District Court judges seem to have no luck at all.
With Boasberg, in this case in particular at least, we know for a fact that he used his position as “Chief Judge” to take this case away from the judge that it was originally assigned to.
Given that the district and appellate courts were created by federal law, and not by the Constitution, Congress could actually do something here to make changes in how the process works (if Congressional R’s had spines, that is, which they absolutely do not).
Starting with abolishing the position of “chief judge” nationwide at the district court level. Make all district court judges equal.
And make the “random” assignment of cases actually random. Have it done publicly like the drawings of state lotteries (could use the same equipment). Even when the “chief judge” isn’t usurping other judges to take cases he wants to be in charge of, lawyers can usually cherry pick which judge (or at least within a few judges) gets assigned a case by simply choosing on which day to file it. Biden’s DOJ did this in the FL case against Trump, they figured they had a 3 in 4 shot of a very friendly judge (and then drew the short straw when judge Cannon got assigned the case).
They could also abolish the DC Circuit entirely (reassigning the current judges to other districts), and split the 9th Circuit (it is twice the size in terms of population served as the others) and then require, by law, that any federal cases involving the executive branch be randomly assigned among the pool of all ~700 district court judges nationwide, rather than the current BS of virtually all such cases being heard by the DC Circuit.
Pretty much everything that everyone is always complaining about has multiple possible solutions that could be implemented by federal law.
What is lacking is the political will to do it.
Is there some point at which his lack of judicial integrity and obvious bias becomes grounds for appeal of any of his decisions? I’m sure there have been corrupt lifetime appointees in the past who are politically shielded from impeachment, and the judicial system has had to devise work arounds.
Other than a complete lack of subject matter jursidiction and no constitutional authority to puppeteer a duly elected sitting U.S. president, man, was this judge in one of “such lower courts ….” oh so right.