A divided federal appeals panel ordered Judge James Boasberg to terminate his criminal contempt investigation into Trump administration officials on Tuesday, handing the White House its latest courtroom win in a deportation fight that has stretched for more than a year. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche wasted no time declaring the battle should be over, as Fox News Digital reported.
The 2-1 ruling from the D.C. Circuit marks the second time appellate judges have stepped in to block Boasberg's contempt efforts against executive branch officials over the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's CECOT prison. The majority called his proceedings "a clear abuse of discretion", language that landed hard in Washington and immediately revived Republican calls for the chief judge's impeachment.
For the administration, the decision validates a simple argument: Boasberg's original order was never clear enough to support criminal contempt, and the judge overstepped by trying to probe high-level national security deliberations. For Boasberg's defenders, the fight is about whether the executive branch can defy a federal court and face no consequences. The appeals court sided firmly with the former view.
Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker, both Trump appointees, formed the majority. Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, dissented. Rao authored the opinion about the legal defect at the center of Boasberg's contempt push.
As Breitbart reported, Rao wrote that criminal contempt requires a violated order that is "clear and specific," and Boasberg's March 2025 temporary restraining order did not meet that standard because it "did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody."
Rao went further, warning that the district court was attempting to "probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy." The majority held that the administration had a "clear and indisputable" right to termination of the contempt investigation.
That framing matters. Criminal contempt carries real penalties, fines, jail, or other sanctions. Boasberg's proceedings had raised the prospect that senior officials, including former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, could face criminal liability for carrying out deportation policy. The appeals court said the legal foundation for that threat was fatally flawed.
The dispute traces back to President Trump's decision to invoke the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used wartime statute, to bypass typical immigration proceedings and quickly deport Venezuelan migrants accused of ties to the gang Tren de Aragua. The migrants were flown to CECOT, El Salvador's high-security mega-prison, a move that drew immediate legal challenges.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of the migrants, and Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order instructing the government to return them to the United States. The Trump administration took the fight to the Supreme Court, which tossed out Boasberg's restraining order. The justices said that while the migrants' due process rights may have been violated, the ACLU should have brought habeas corpus claims in the courts where the migrants were last detained, not in Boasberg's courtroom.
That should have been the end of it. It wasn't.
Boasberg launched contempt proceedings last year, accusing the Trump administration of defying his order. The D.C. Circuit shut down that initial effort. Then, upon discovering that Noem had allegedly ordered government officials to ignore his order, Boasberg opened a new, more narrowly tailored contempt probe. The appeals panel terminated that probe on Tuesday.
The pattern is striking. At every turn, higher courts have reined in Boasberg. The Supreme Court overturned his restraining order. The D.C. Circuit blocked his first contempt investigation. Now the same appellate court has blocked the second one, calling it an abuse of discretion. As George Mason University law professor Rob Luther observed: "Another day, another reversal of Judge Boasberg."
Todd Blanche, newly appointed as acting attorney general by President Trump earlier this month to replace Pam Bondi, seized on the ruling. In a post on X, Blanche framed the decision as the final word on what he called a misguided judicial campaign.
"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."
Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo., went further, resurfacing Republican demands for impeachment. Schmitt noted that the D.C. Circuit had labeled Boasberg's contempt effort an "improper investigation" and a "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."
The impeachment push is not new. House Speaker Johnson has previously backed impeachment proceedings against Boasberg, though the effort has stalled in the House. Tuesday's ruling may inject fresh energy into that campaign, or it may simply confirm what the appellate courts have already decided through ordinary legal channels.
The White House itself piled on. A spokeswoman, Abigail Jackson, told the New York Post that the ruling vindicated the administration's position: "We have long known that Judge Boasberg is a far-left judicial activist trying to undermine the President's lawful authority, this is just further proof."
The deportation case is not Boasberg's only recent collision with the Trump administration. He recently blocked the Department of Justice's ability to subpoena Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, alleging the investigation's "sole purpose" was to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates. That move drew its own wave of criticism from conservatives who see the chief judge as willing to intervene far beyond his lane.
The D.C. Circuit's repeated rebukes of Boasberg raise a basic question about the role of a single district judge in national policy disputes. The appeals court majority made clear that probing "high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy" is a serious step, one that requires a legal foundation Boasberg did not have.
Former Attorney General Pam Bondi had earlier framed the clash in blunt terms, writing that "this radical, retaliatory, unconstitutional campaign against the Trump Administration will not stand." The appellate ruling suggests the courts agree, at least on the contempt question.
Boasberg, for his part, had previously defended his actions in writing, stating that "the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it." That argument did not persuade the majority.
The ACLU could appeal the decision to the full bench of the D.C. Circuit, seeking an en banc rehearing. Whether they do, and whether the full court would take the case, remains an open question. The Washington Examiner noted that the panel granted a writ of mandamus ordering termination of the contempt proceedings, a strong remedy that signals the majority saw no close call here.
The Venezuelan migrants, meanwhile, remain in CECOT. No court has ordered their return since the Supreme Court vacated Boasberg's restraining order. The legal fight over their deportation continues on other fronts, but the contempt track, the one that threatened to put administration officials behind bars, appears finished.
The broader pattern of activist judges being overruled by higher courts in Trump-era disputes shows no sign of slowing down. District judges in Washington and elsewhere continue to issue sweeping orders against executive action, and the administration continues to win on appeal.
When a judge's contempt investigation gets shut down twice by the same appellate court, and the Supreme Court has already tossed his restraining order, the question isn't whether the executive branch overstepped. It's whether the judge did.
