A federal appeals court has halted criminal contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials over deportation flights carried out under the Alien Enemies Act, ending a legal dispute over the limits of a lower court’s authority in examining alleged noncompliance with a prior order.
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit directed U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to end his inquiry.
The majority concluded the proceedings improperly expanded beyond enforcement of a court order into areas tied to executive branch decision-making involving immigration enforcement and national security.
The opinion was written by Judge Neomi Rao and joined by Judge Justin Walker.
The majority said the contempt probe risked drawing the judiciary into internal government deliberations rather than focusing narrowly on whether a specific order had been violated.
Rao wrote that allowing the inquiry to continue would open the door to “freewheeling” judicial examination of sensitive policy decisions, warning that contempt proceedings cannot be used as a tool for broad oversight of executive operations.
Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented, arguing that trial courts must retain authority to determine whether their orders were followed.
She said contempt power is essential to maintaining compliance with judicial rulings and should not be limited before a full factual record is developed, CBS News reported.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s 2025 use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport more than 200 Venezuelan nationals accused by the administration of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.
The individuals were sent to a detention facility in El Salvador as part of the operation.
During emergency proceedings, Boasberg ordered federal officials to halt deportation flights already en route and return the detainees to U.S. custody.
The flights were not turned back, prompting the judge to later initiate a contempt inquiry to determine whether his directive had been violated.
The inquiry also reviewed internal government communications tied to the decision to continue the flights, including allegations that former Homeland Security Secretary (DHS) Kristi Noem approved their continuation after the court’s order.
The appellate majority said that line of inquiry raised separation-of-powers concerns, emphasizing that courts may not conduct open-ended examinations of executive policy decisions, particularly in matters involving immigration enforcement and foreign affairs.
The ruling comes amid an ongoing legal battle over the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old statute that has faced renewed scrutiny in modern immigration enforcement.
Lower courts have issued mixed rulings, and related litigation remains ongoing.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the decision should end what he described as an extended effort targeting Justice Department attorneys involved in immigration enforcement, calling it a restoration of proper constitutional boundaries.
American Civil Liberties Union attorney Lee Gelernt criticized the ruling, saying it weakens accountability when court orders are allegedly disregarded by government agencies.
The decision effectively ends Boasberg’s contempt inquiry, closing a closely watched dispute over deportation authority, judicial enforcement powers, and limits on court oversight of executive branch operations.
