WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge must end an “intrusive” contempt investigation into the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order for flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.
According to the majority opinion of a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion to proceed with criminal proceedings stemming from the March 2025 deportation flights.
The ruling is the latest twist in a year-long legal saga that has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s campaign of mass deportations. The White House has portrayed Boasberg as a biased judge who overstepped his authority.
The Trump administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to end the contempt proceedings, Justice Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“The legal error at the heart of these criminal proceedings demonstrates why the district court’s further investigation was an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt applies only to violations of a clear and specific order. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically prohibit the government from transferring the plaintiffs to Salvadoran custody.”
Rao was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Boasberg, chief judge of the district court in Washington, DC, was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.
On March 15, 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting authorities from transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th century law. After the order was issued, two flights carrying migrants covered by protective orders departed from the US en route to El Salvador, where they were locked up in one of the world’s most violent prisons. The administration said then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem was responsible for the transfer decision.
Boasberg said the Trump administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to kick Venezuelan migrants out of the country despite his orders. He said he gave the administration “multiple opportunities to correct or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses were satisfactory.”
Last year, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making inappropriate comments about Trump and his administration. Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment. In a rare rebuke, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rejected calls for Boasberg’s impeachment.
The case was assigned to Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump candidate, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Rao. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented from the majority.
Childs said the court majority trampled on Boasberg’s authority “in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings but also future proceedings against all litigants.”
“Any litigant can now argue, based on his or her preferred interpretation of the court’s order, that he or she was not in contempt before the finding of contempt was entered,” Childs wrote in his 80-page dissent.
Lawyers for deported migrants could ask a district court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the panel’s decision.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union said the majority opinion was “a blow to the rule of law.”
“Our system is built on the executive branch, including the president, respecting court orders. In this case, there is no doubt that the Trump administration willfully violated court orders,” Gelernt said in a statement.