US appeals court blocks contempt case over Trump deportation flights
TL;DR
A US appeals court has blocked contempt proceedings against Trump's administration regarding the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants. The court ruled that the lower court's efforts were a clear abuse of discretion.
Key points
- US appeals court blocks contempt proceedings against Trump administration
- Court ruled efforts by Judge Boasberg were a clear abuse of discretion
- Contempt case involved deportation of Venezuelan immigrants
A United States federal appeals court has blocked a lower court judge from pursuing contempt proceedings against President Donald Trump’s administration over last year’s deportation of Venezuelan immigrants.
In a two-to-one decision on Tuesday, an appeals panel in Washington, DC, halted plans from District Judge James Boasberg to hold hearings examining whether former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and others should face charges of criminal contempt.
The majority ruled that Boasberg’s efforts amounted to a “clear abuse of discretion”.
Boasberg had sought to determine whether officials violated his order on March 15, 2025, to turn around two deportation flights to El Salvador while they were already in the air.
But Judge Neomi Rao wrote in Tuesday’s majority decision that Boasberg’s order did not explicitly prevent the Trump administration from transferring the immigrants into El Salvador’s custody.
“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote.
“Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific.”
She added that Boasberg’s contempt inquiries were “intrusive” and risked revealing high-level deliberations on national security and diplomacy.
The case centres on the March 2025 removal of 137 Venezuelan nationals, who the Trump administration accused of links to the Tren de Aragua gang.
Tensions over deportation flights
The group was deported to El Salvador under the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law that grants presidents broad powers during wartime or invasion.
Critics called the use of the law an example of presidential overreach, and lawyers for the immigrants argued their clients’ right to due process was violated, given that the hasty nature of the deportations prevented them from appealing.
They also maintained that some of the immigrants were falsely accused of being gang members, based solely on their clothing and tattoos.
After spending months in El Salvador’s maximum-security Centre for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), the men were released to Venezuela in July 2025, as part of a prisoner exchange.
Tuesday’s decision marks the latest flashpoint in a broader clash between Boasberg and the Trump administration over the deportation flights.
Boasberg has suggested the administration may have acted “in bad faith” by rapidly assembling the March 2025 deportation flights while he was holding emergency court proceedings to assess the legality of the effort.
The Trump administration, meanwhile, has accused Boasberg of being a “radical left lunatic” who used his bench for political aims.
Tuesday’s appeals court decision fell along party lines. The two judges who formed the majority, Rao and Judge Justin Walker, were both Trump appointees.
The dissenting vote came from Judge J Michelle Childs, an appointee of former President Joe Biden. Boasberg himself was nominated by former President Barack Obama.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote on the social media platform X that the ruling “should finally end Judge Boasberg’s year-long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration”.
Q&A
What did the US appeals court decide regarding Trump's deportation flights?
The US appeals court blocked contempt proceedings against Trump's administration over the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants.
Who was involved in the contempt case against the Trump administration?
The case involved former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and was initiated by District Judge James Boasberg.
What was the basis for the appeals court's ruling on the contempt case?
The appeals court ruled that the lower court's efforts constituted a clear abuse of discretion and that the order did not explicitly prevent the administration from transferring immigrants.
