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.
But the D.C. Circuit said those proceedings cannot continue because the underlying order did not clearly prohibit the conduct at issue, so Trump administration officials could not have clearly violated it.
“The TRO did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody,” Rao wrote. “The TRO therefore cannot support criminal contempt.”
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.
The appeals court also pointed to broader constitutional concerns, warning that Boasberg’s continued inquiry risked improperly intruding into executive branch decision-making on matters involving national security and foreign affairs.
“The district court has assumed an improper jurisdiction antagonistic to the Executive Branch,” the opinion said, adding that mandamus relief was necessary to “halt the inquest.” 
Tuesday’s ruling builds on earlier intervention by the D.C. Circuit, which in December paused the proceedings and ordered a briefing on whether Boasberg had the authority to pursue what he described as “indirect contempt” tied to actions taken outside the courtroom.
JUDGE DISMISSES DOJ JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINT AGAINST JAMES BOASBERG
The Trump administration had argued throughout the dispute that the contempt inquiry was unconstitutional and retaliatory, accusing Boasberg of attempting to investigate internal executive deliberations after the Supreme Court had already vacated the underlying order.
