Back to Headlines
News
Apr 15, 2026

Appeals Court Halts Judge’s Contempt Probe into Trump Administration’s Venezuelan Deportation Flights

AI Summary
A U.S. federal appeals panel stopped District Judge James Boasberg from pursuing criminal contempt proceedings over the 2025 deportation of 137 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, ruling the lower court’s actions a clear abuse of discretion and highlighting the ongoing clash between the judiciary and the executive on immigration enforcement.

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a two‑to‑one decision on Tuesday that blocks District Judge James Boasberg from moving forward with contempt hearings against the Trump administration.

The case stemmed from Boasberg’s attempt to determine whether officials violated his March 15, 2025 order to turn around two deportation flights while they were airborne. The flights had carried 137 Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 statute granting presidents broad wartime powers.

In the majority opinion, Judge Neomi Rao (a Trump appointee) wrote that Boasberg’s contempt inquiry was a “clear abuse of discretion,” noting that the district court’s order did not expressly forbid the transfer of the migrants into Salvadoran custody. She emphasized that criminal contempt applies only to violations of a “clear and specific” order.

Judge Justin Walker, also appointed by Trump, joined Rao, while Judge J. Michelle Childs—a Biden appointee—dissented. The split reflects the broader partisan tension surrounding the case.

Critics of the deportations argued that invoking the Alien Enemies Act represented presidential overreach and that the rapid operation denied the immigrants due process, including the ability to appeal. Some detainees were later released to Venezuela in a July 2025 prisoner exchange after spending months in El Salvador’s maximum‑security Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the ruling on X, stating it should “finally end Judge Boasberg’s year‑long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration.”

The decision underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive immigration actions, especially when emergency court orders intersect with national‑security‑related statutes. It also signals that future attempts to pursue contempt for alleged violations of ambiguous orders may face heightened scrutiny.