A federal appeals court in Washington handed Judge James Boasberg his second major defeat in the same case on Tuesday, issuing a 2-1 ruling that ordered him to terminate his criminal contempt investigation into Trump administration officials over deportation flights to El Salvador. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wasted no time calling for the judge to stand down for good.
The D.C. Circuit's decision landed like a bookend on a legal fight that has dragged on for more than a year, one in which Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, repeatedly sought to hold senior administration officials accountable for allegedly defying his orders. The appeals court said he had no business doing so.
The ruling found that Boasberg's contempt proceedings amounted to a "clear abuse of discretion," a phrase the majority used more than once. The court granted a writ of mandamus, an extraordinary legal remedy, ordering the contempt inquiry shut down entirely. For the Trump administration, it was vindication. For Boasberg's critics, it was long overdue.
Blanche, newly appointed by President Trump to replace Pam Bondi as acting attorney general, issued a pointed statement on Tuesday framing the ruling as a decisive rebuke of the judge's conduct.
"Today's decision by the DC Circuit should finally end Judge Boasberg's year-long campaign against the hardworking Department attorneys doing their jobs fighting illegal immigration."
The word "finally" carried weight. This was not the first time the D.C. Circuit had stepped in to block Boasberg in this case. The appellate court had previously shut down his initial contempt effort. After that rebuke, Boasberg opened a new, more narrowly tailored contempt probe, and the appeals court shut that one down on Tuesday, too.
George Mason University law professor Rob Luther captured the pattern in a social media post: "Another day, another reversal of Judge Boasberg."
The dispute traces back to last year, when the Trump administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to bypass typical immigration proceedings and deport Venezuelan migrants. The deportees were flown to the CECOT prison in El Salvador, a facility that has become a symbol of the administration's aggressive posture on illegal immigration and transnational gang activity.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the migrants, and Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order instructing the government to return the deportees to the United States. The Trump administration maintained that it was not bound by the order as Boasberg interpreted it. Boasberg then accused the administration of defying his directive and launched contempt proceedings.
That set off a chain of escalating clashes between the district court and the executive branch, clashes that have become a recurring feature of the current legal landscape as federal judges and the administration collide over immigration enforcement, executive authority, and the limits of judicial power.
The Supreme Court eventually tossed out Boasberg's restraining order. The justices acknowledged that the migrants' due process rights may have been violated but said the ACLU should have brought habeas corpus claims in the courts where the migrants were last detained, not in Boasberg's courtroom in Washington. That ruling undercut the legal foundation of everything Boasberg had built on top of his original order.
But Boasberg pressed on. After discovering allegations that former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem had ordered government officials to ignore his order, the judge opened a second contempt investigation, this one more narrowly drawn. It was that probe the D.C. Circuit terminated on Tuesday.
Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion. She was joined by Judge Justin Walker, also a Trump appointee. Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, dissented.
Rao's opinion struck at the core of Boasberg's legal theory. As Newsmax reported, the majority held that Boasberg's original temporary restraining order "did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody." Without that clarity, the court said, criminal contempt could not stand.
Criminal contempt is a serious matter, punishable by fines, jail, or other sanctions. For the appeals court, that severity demanded a clear underlying order. And Boasberg's order, the majority found, simply did not meet that standard.
Rao went further, warning that the contempt investigation itself intruded on executive authority in ways the judiciary should not tolerate. As the Washington Examiner reported, the court found the inquiry improperly encroached on executive branch prerogatives in national security and foreign affairs.
"The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy."
That language matters. The appeals court was not merely saying Boasberg got a procedural detail wrong. It was saying he had ventured into territory where the judiciary does not belong, probing the internal deliberations of the executive branch on how to handle deportations and foreign custody arrangements.
Tuesday's ruling renewed Republican demands that Congress act against Boasberg. Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., seized on the decision to press the case for impeachment.
"The D.C. Circuit ruled Boasberg's contempt crusade against Trump officials is an 'improper investigation' and 'clear abuse of discretion.' He tried to imprison Trump officials for deporting Venezuelan gang members. I'm calling on the House: Impeach Rogue Judge Boasberg."
Schmitt's call is not new. Republicans have pushed for judicial accountability throughout the administration's confrontations with the federal bench. The White House itself has backed the idea of impeaching federal judges whose rulings it views as overreach.
Whether the House takes up Schmitt's demand remains to be seen. But the political pressure on Boasberg is mounting. He has now been reversed by both the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit in the same case, and his second attempt at contempt proceedings met the same fate as the first.
The deportation case is not the only front where Boasberg has drawn fire. He recently blocked the Department of Justice's ability to subpoena Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, alleging that the investigation's "sole purpose" was to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates. That ruling added to a growing portrait of a judge willing to insert himself into politically charged disputes between the executive branch and independent agencies.
The pattern has frustrated the administration and its allies. The New York Post noted that the White House cast Tuesday's ruling as vindication for President Trump, with the majority holding that Boasberg had overreached by pursuing "an intrusive criminal inquiry" into executive-branch actions.
Blanche's appointment as acting attorney general earlier this month came amid broader frustrations with the Justice Department's performance in court. Those frustrations, including Supreme Court setbacks that shaped the decision to replace Pam Bondi, have made the administration more combative in its dealings with judges it views as hostile to the president's agenda.
The ACLU could appeal Tuesday's decision to the full bench of the D.C. Circuit, and the broader underlying case continues. But the contempt track, the avenue through which Boasberg sought to hold administration officials personally accountable, potentially facing fines or jail, is now closed unless a higher authority reopens it.
The administration's legal posture has been consistent throughout: the president has the authority to enforce immigration law aggressively, and the judiciary should not second-guess executive decisions about how and where to deport illegal immigrants. Tuesday's ruling, at least on the contempt question, agreed.
For those who have watched this saga unfold, from the initial deportation flights to the restraining order, the Supreme Court reversal, and now two appellate rebukes of Boasberg's contempt efforts, the trajectory is clear. The broader pattern of legal actors overstepping in pursuit of Trump administration officials has not aged well in the courts.
At some point, a judge who keeps getting reversed ought to take the hint. Whether Boasberg will, or whether Congress will make the decision for him, is the only question left.
