Appeals Court Thwarts Boasberg’s Contempt Proceedings Against Trump Officials

A federal appeals court has stepped in to block U.S. District Judge James Boasberg from moving forward with contempt proceedings against the Trump administration, ordering all sides to stand down until at least 2026 while judges determine whether Boasberg even has the legal authority to pursue contempt in the first place.

In a December 15 order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—Judges Neomi Rao, Justin Walker, and Michelle Childs—granted the administration’s request to pause the case. The panel also directed both parties to submit comprehensive legal briefs examining the outer limits of a district court’s contempt powers.

The move comes amid growing friction between the judiciary and President Donald J. Trump’s administration during his second term, particularly over the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to remove alleged members of the violent Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua from the United States.

Under the appellate court’s schedule, the respondents must file their response by December 29, 2025, with the administration’s reply due by January 5, 2026.

The judges specifically ordered the parties to address whether a district court has any lawful authority to investigate and delay a criminal referral in cases involving so-called “indirect contempt.”

Quoting directly from the order, the panel wrote: “Federal law recognizes that criminal contempt may be direct or indirect. … A court may initiate criminal proceedings for indirect contempt through notice and a referral for prosecution. … In seeking information about decisions made outside the presence of the court and referencing the possibility of a referral for prosecution, the district court appears to contemplate indirect contempt proceedings. … On what legal basis may a district court (1) investigate possible grounds for indirect contempt and (2) delay a referral for prosecution until it finds probable cause that indirect contempt occurred?”

The decision effectively puts Boasberg’s planned contempt hearings on ice, kicking the dispute into next year and extending a legal fight that has already attracted national attention.

Boasberg—an Obama appointee and the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia—has spent months clashing with the Trump administration over whether federal officials violated his March order temporarily blocking deportation flights to El Salvador.

Those flights were carried out under President Trump’s enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act, a law dating back to 1798 that authorizes the removal of non-citizens from hostile nations during times of conflict.

“This is what we in the industry like to call a “benchslap’,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon said in response to the appellate court’s action.

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the broader policy dispute, allowing the administration to continue invoking the Alien Enemies Act while legal challenges work their way through the courts.

Just last week, the Department of Justice accused Boasberg of bias and formally asked the D.C. Circuit to remove him from the case altogether, arguing that his conduct created a “strong appearance” of personal hostility toward administration officials.

According to the department, the judge’s “pattern of retaliation and harassment” crossed the line—particularly after he ordered sworn testimony from current and former DOJ attorneys over the contested deportation decisions.

“This long-running saga never should have begun; should not have continued at all after this Court’s last intervention; and certainly should not be allowed to escalate into the unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict that it now imminently portends,” the Justice Department wrote in its filing.

Among those ordered to testify was Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ attorney turned whistleblower who alleged officials disregarded court orders to halt deportation flights.

Reuveni claimed that former senior DOJ official Emil Bove once said during internal discussions that the department might need to “tell the courts ‘f*** you’ and ignore any such court order”—a statement Bove has categorically denied.

Critics of Boasberg, including President Trump himself, have accused the judge of carrying out a politically motivated campaign against the administration.

The president has publicly called for Boasberg’s impeachment, and more than a dozen House Republicans have co-sponsored articles seeking his removal, citing what they describe as judicial overreach and “open defiance of executive authority.”

For now, the D.C. Circuit’s stay freezes all contempt-related activity, leaving Judge Boasberg sidelined while appellate judges review the matter early next year.