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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY