In re: Donald Trump
Case Overview
The government appealed Judge Boasberg's order contempt inquiry into the Trump administration.
BrynoDC Coverage 8 videos
The Facts
District Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) issued an oral order on March 15, 2025, directing the government to pause deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration proceeded with flights while the order was in effect, asserting the order did not apply to planes already airborne or that its scope was ambiguous. Judge Boasberg later initiated a criminal contempt inquiry. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit seeking to block the inquiry.
The Application
Under the governing standard requiring a clear and unambiguous order for contempt liability, the D.C. Circuit found that Judge Boasberg's oral TRO did not clearly and specifically prohibit the government from transferring plaintiffs to El Salvador, particularly regarding planes already in flight. The administration's good-faith interpretation that the order's scope was ambiguous or inapplicable to already-airborne deportations thus negated the willfulness element essential to criminal contempt. The court also weighed separation-of-powers concerns, concluding that enforcing an ambiguously-worded order through criminal sanction against executive branch officials would represent an unwarranted intrusion into executive authority.
The Conclusion
**Panel opinion vacated.** The original 2-1 panel (Rao, Walker, Childs) had ordered Judge Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt inquiry on April 14, 2026. On June 22, 2026, the full D.C. Circuit granted en banc rehearing by majority vote, vacated the panel opinion, and scheduled oral argument for September 29, 2026. The administrative stay entered December 12, 2025 remains in effect. 174 former federal judges filed amicus curiae in support of the petition for rehearing.
Case Analysis
Overview
The government appealed Judge Boasberg's order contempt inquiry into the Trump administration.
Facts
District Judge James Boasberg (D.D.C.) issued an oral order on March 15, 2025, directing the government to pause deportation flights to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. The administration proceeded with flights while the order was in effect, asserting the order did not apply to planes already airborne or that its scope was ambiguous. Judge Boasberg later initiated a criminal contempt inquiry. The government appealed to the D.C. Circuit seeking to block the inquiry.
Issue
Whether a district court may initiate criminal contempt proceedings against executive branch officials for allegedly violating a court order to pause deportations, and whether the administration's interpretation that the order did not apply to already-airborne flights was legally tenable.
Rule
Federal courts have inherent authority to enforce their orders through contempt proceedings, including criminal contempt for willful violations. Criminal contempt requires a clear and unambiguous order and a willful violation of that order. Good-faith interpretation of an ambiguous order is a defense to contempt.
Analysis
Under the governing standard requiring a clear and unambiguous order for contempt liability, the D.C. Circuit found that Judge Boasberg's oral TRO did not clearly and specifically prohibit the government from transferring plaintiffs to El Salvador, particularly regarding planes already in flight. The administration's good-faith interpretation that the order's scope was ambiguous or inapplicable to already-airborne deportations thus negated the willfulness element essential to criminal contempt. The court also weighed separation-of-powers concerns, concluding that enforcing an ambiguously-worded order through criminal sanction against executive branch officials would represent an unwarranted intrusion into executive authority.
Conclusion
**The D.C. Circuit ordered Judge Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt inquiry into Trump administration officials who carried out the El Salvador deportation flights.** In a 2-1 decision, Judges Rao and Walker held that Boasberg's temporary restraining order did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody, and that the contempt inquiry represented an unwarranted impairment of the executive branch. Judge Childs dissented in an 80-page opinion.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support