DC Court of Appeals Bodies, Beats Down Obama Judge Boasberg for His Extrajudicial Unending "Investigation" Into Trump for Ignoring His Poorly-Worded and Also Illegal Order

SCOTUS Wire @scotus_wire

2h

🚨 In a 2-1 vote, a D.C. Circuit panel has issued an extraordinary writ of mandamus, ordering Judge Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt probe into the Trump administration's transfer of alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador.

If you recall, Boasberg issued a (lawless) TRO blocking Trump from deporting criminal illegal Venezuelans to the CECOT prison in El Salvador. But Boasberg mis-drafted his order because the planes were already on their way. The TRO was then moot.

This made Boasberg angry so, on his own initiative and by his own "authority," Boasberg has been conducting a Star Chamber criminal investigation into Trump and his staffers.

Even worse, the Supreme Court later ruled that Boasberg had no authority to issue this order in any case. But the power-mad authoritarian continued his "investigations" into whether his order -- now ruled conclusively to have been lawless and void from the onset -- was "violated" by Trump anyway.

The order has been ruled illegal - but Boasberg insists on seeking criminal charges against people for violating his officially-illegal order anyway. He's taking the position: "I don't care if the order was illegal, Trump should have obeyed it anyway, and he should be punished for not Respeccing My Authoritah!"

By a vote of 2-1, an Appeals Court just ordered him to terminate these lawless proceedings.

A federal appeals court on Tuesday ordered an end to U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's criminal contempt inquiry into Trump administration officials over last year's deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, delivering a second major rebuke to Boasberg and foreclosing further pursuit of the case.

In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit granted a writ of mandamus and directed that the contempt proceedings be "terminated," finding Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, had committed a "clear abuse of discretion" by continuing to press forward A writ of mandamus is a rare and extraordinary order from a higher court directing a lower court or government official to stop exceeding their authority.

The panel that wrote the 122-page decision included Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, both appointed by President Donald Trump, in the majority, and Judge J. Michelle Childs, appointed by former President Joe Biden, in dissent. The Washington Examiner contacted the Justice Department for comment.

"The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy," the majority wrote. "These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court's order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody."

The order comes nearly one year after Boasberg found probable cause to hold the government in criminal contempt, accusing officials of failing to comply with his March directive to halt deportation flights carrying Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador, where many were sent to a maximum-security prison. The deported Venezuelans were illegal immigrants who were suspected of being members of Tren de Aragua, a violent transnational gang.

Boasberg had sought to determine whether officials, including then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, willfully violated that order and had moved toward referring the matter for criminal prosecution while continuing to gather evidence through hearings and testimony.

The Supreme Court ultimately overturned the underlying order from Boasberg that had blocked Trump from using the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal immigrants suspected of gang membership. Boasberg, however, continued investigating whether the Trump administration had violated the order.

More from the decision, via Powerline:

More than a year ago, the President invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang and foreign terrorist organization, and ordered that they be detained and removed from the United States. In a series of fast-moving events on March 15, 2025, the government placed a group of alleged gang members, including plaintiffs in this case, on planes to El Salvador. After the planes took off and left the country, the district court ordered the government not to remove the plaintiffs from the United States.

The Supreme Court vacated the district court's order because it was premised on a legal error and the plaintiffs' suit was brought in the wrong court.

I think that last part might be about these criminal illegals filing in friendly liberal district courts while ignoring the Immigration Courts that actually have jurisdiction over their cases. They did this again and again and the Supreme Court kept telling them that they had no original (first-dibs) jurisdiction in these cases, but could only enter the cases after an appeal.

Nonetheless, the district court threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for instance, taking back custody of the plaintiffs. We issued a writ of mandamus vacating the court's first contempt order.

Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal contempt for the government's decision to transfer the plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision. The district court previously said this was the only information it required to make a referral for prosecution. But the district court has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to extract more information from government counsel about exactly what happened last March. The government petitions for mandamus.

The widening gyre of the district court's investigation again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt the judicial "impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties." Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,542 U.S. 367, 390 (2004) (cleaned up). The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court's order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody. Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper. In these circumstances, mandamus is appropriate to prevent the district court from assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction that encroaches on the autonomy of the Executive Branch.

Eric Schmidt comments:

Senator Eric Schmitt @SenEricSchmitt

4h

"The pursuit of this improper investigation is a clear abuse of discretion." Judge Boasberg just got slapped down...again.

The walls are closing in on his crusade to jail Trump officials for DEPORTING Venezualan terrorists.

It's clear: time to impeach Rogue Judge Boasberg. 🧵

To review: last March, Judge Boasberg forced himself onto the "turn the planes around" case--just a few days after trying to foment a constitutional crisis at a Judicial Conference meeting.

He has spent the past year trying to jail prosecutors and cabinet Secretaries.

Today, the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion, once again, in the appeal on Boasberg's attempt (extrajurisdictionally) to hold officials in contempt.

The Court found Boasberg's "inquest" was both wrong on the law and a violation of our Separation of Powers.

Let's break it down.

The core holding is simple.

Criminal contempt requires a court order that is "clear and specific." The D.C. Circuit held this TRO was not. Why? Because the written order barred "removing" class members, but said nothing about transferring custody once the planes were already outside the United States.

The district court tried to transform an order about "removal" into an order about continued U.S. custody in El Salvador.

The D.C. Circuit said no: criminal liability cannot rest on what a judge later says he meant. It has to rest on what the order actually said at the time.

So, he mis-drafted his order but now wants to put people in jail for not having obeyed the order I meant to give, but did not in fact give because I am a sloppy partisan incompetent.

Judge Boasberg was mad he didn't get his way by halting the deportation of TDA terrorists.

He got shut down:

"In our constitutional system of government, criminal liability cannot turn on the unstated intentions (or post hoc assertions) of a district court judge."

The district court told the government it would issue a written order "so you don't have to race to write it down." The written order then superseded the oral remarks--and that written order did not bar what the district court later claimed it barred.

This is bigger than one case.

If this contempt theory had survived, any politically charged district judge could issue a rushed, muddy order, then later reinterpret it to threaten executive officials with prosecution. The D.C. Circuit put a needed stop to that.

Today's ruling is a win for due process, for separation of powers, and for the proposition that judges must follow the law too.

No vague order.
No post-hoc rewrite.
No judicial fishing expedition.
No contempt.

Time to move forward with impeachment.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 05:30 PM

| Access Comments