The Trump administration is asking a federal appeals court to uphold its previous ruling that stopped a contempt investigation into the handling of immigrants deported to El Salvador.
Appeals Court Halts Contempt Inquiry
The investigation was started by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who has frequently challenged President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. In April 2025, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a mandamus order, effectively stopping the probe. The order came almost a year after detainees had filed petitions seeking relief, including habeas corpus.
ACLU Seeks Reconsideration
Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the deported immigrants, asked the full appellate court to reconsider the ruling. They argued the panel’s decision conflicts with the severity of the government’s actions, which allegedly exposed the immigrants to months of ab*se in El Salvador’s CECOT prison.
DOJ Pushes Back
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 20-page opposition, saying the panel got it right. The DOJ argued that the contempt inquiry was unnecessary because no court order had actually been violated. The motion criticised the lower court for trying to probe the Executive branch’s national-security and foreign-policy decisions.
Background of the Case
On April 16, 2025, Judge Boasberg found probable cause that the government could be held in contempt. This was in response to the admitted violation of a March 2025 court order, which required the Trump administration to halt the deportation of 238 Venezuelan immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act. These immigrants were sent to a prison in El Salvador.
Two appellate judges appointed by Trump, Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, supported stopping the inquiry. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, appointed by Obama, dissented.
Points of Contention
The ACLU argued that the immigrants suffered months of ab*se and torture because of the deportation. The DOJ responded that courts retain the power to enforce their orders, but in this case, the district court’s order did not clearly prohibit the government’s actions. They added that the testimony the court wanted was unnecessary and risked a clash between the Judiciary and the Executive.
DOJ’s Position
According to the DOJ, the government’s actions did not violate any court order. They also argued that Judge Boasberg’s order was unclear, too broad, or not specific enough, making it impossible for DOJ counsel to fully understand. Any contempt charge would therefore fail.
The DOJ requested that the petition for a full court rehearing be denied. They said that criminal contempt can only result from a clear and unambiguous order, and the facts here do not meet that standard. Any further review would serve no practical purpose and could only complicate matters.
