The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg cannot move forward with possible contempt proceedings against the Trump administration.
The case involves the administration’s alleged violation of an emergency court order blocking the administration from using a 1798 law to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador — the latest in an evolving, high-stakes court clash that has played out for months in various courts.
Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, two Trump appointees on the majority-Democrat bench, sided with the Trump administration Friday in blocking Boasberg’s contempt motion from moving forward.
Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented.
The 2-1 ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the full court to be heard en banc, where the Democrat-majority bench is seen as more favorable to the plaintiffs, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.
‘The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,’ Katsas said Friday, writing for the majority.
‘Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.’
Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling does not center on the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when administration officials invoked the 1798 immigration law to send more than 250 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
‘Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,’ he added. ‘Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.’
‘Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.’
The ruling comes months after Boasberg originally found grounds to move on potential contempt proceedings in the case.
It comes as Boasberg has also ordered ongoing status updates on the location and custodial status of the 252 CECOT class migrants, after they were deported last month from El Salvador to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange between the U.S. and Venezuela.
It is unclear how many of those migrants had pending asylum applications in the U.S. or had been granted a ‘withholding of removal’ order blocking their return to their country of origin.
The long-awaited ruling comes months after Boasberg ruled that the court had found probable cause to move on criminal contempt proceedings after he issued a late-night temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador.
Boasberg had also ordered all migrants to be ‘immediately returned’ to U.S. soil, which did not happen.
Despite the order, hundreds of migrants were deported to the Salvadorian prison, CECOT, in March, where they remained until late last month, when they were sent from the prison in El Salvador to Venezuela, as part of the prisoner exchange.
Boasbeg ruled in April that there was ‘probable cause’ to move on criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.
The appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay of the ruling months earlier, prompting questions as to why they did not move more quickly on the motion.
Still, the decision is almost certain to be appealed either to the full circuit court to be heard en banc, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.
The Trump administration for months has sparred with judges who have blocked the president’s executive orders from taking force.
Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump’s biggest public foes. Last month, the court attempted to have him removed from overseeing the case and have it reassigned to another case — a long-shot effort that legal experts and former judges suggested is unlikely to go far.
This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.