Appeals court halts Boasberg's contempt proceedings against Trump administration

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

04/18/25 8:31 PM ET


A divided federal appeals court panel on Friday temporarily halted U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the Trump administration over its deportation flights to El Salvador last month.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit indicated its order is intended to provide “sufficient opportunity” for the court to consider the government’s appeal and “should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”

But for now, it prevents Boasberg from moving ahead with his efforts to hold administration officials in contempt. The judge on Wednesday found probable cause for contempt, calling the government’s refusal to turn around the March 15 deportation flights “a willful disregard” for the court’s order.

The three-judge D.C. Circuit panel split 2-1. The two Trump appointees, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, ruled for the administration. Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of former President Obama, dissented. “In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay,” Pillard wrote in a brief explanation.

Read more: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5256814-appeals-court-boasberg-trump-contempt/

[moniss]

1. This is not a good sign. It may

well signal to Crumb The 1st and the fascists that defiance of court orders and any subsequent contempt proceedings will be slow walked into obscurity. During which time Crumb The 1st can "replace" the individual cited for contempt and then the DOJ will move to dismiss based on being mooted. His own contempt would of course go in front of the SC that has already granted him immunity.

[Ms. Toad]

2. This is a unique situation - not easily transferrable to other situations.

The underlying case has been dismissed, as brought in the wrong jurisdiction. That means the court didn't have the authority to issue the order that the administration disobeyed anyway. So the Boasberg could easily have decided to drop the contempt charge because the order issued was infalid.=. He chose to proceed, without the underlying case, but the fact that there is no underlying case was always going to be an issue.

[moniss]

3. In normal times it would not be "easily transferrable"

but we are not in normal times and the idea that they won't use this isn't a sound conclusion based on their actions so far.

Furthermore if you read the dissent it is clear that DOJ literally filed nothing other than "please don't let the judge do this". As far as mooting the contempt they could have argued that but they have not which is indicative of saving it to come back for another bite at the apple later or just crappy lawyering. I think in this matter they never intend to comply with literally anything that goes against them.

[Ms. Toad]

4. I didn't say they won't attempt to use it.

Simply if contempt is actually found that this decision is not relevant precedent, and the courts are extremely unlikely to go along with it unless it is in a similar situation: The administration refusing to obey an order the court never had the jurisdiction to issue.

[moniss]

5. The underlying case being ultimately found to be in the wrong jurisdiction

does not automatically moot contempt that takes place up to that point. If that were the case then anybody who called a judge an SOB in court could claim to moot the matter of contempt if they managed to win an appeal of the underlying case. Plaintiffs and Defendants don't get to just do anything with impunity regarding rulings or court procedures/conduct and then win the underlying case on appeal. If that were the case you would have bedlam at trial on a routine basis.

So if we follow the prescription of it's OK if you can later make good on the underlying appeal of the case then there would be little reason for anyone to fear contempt. So lawyers and litigants could just ignore motions, injunctions, restraining orders, rulings to produce evidence/documents and the list goes on. The scenario you propose would place every failure to comply or abuse of the court of any kind in a more or less voluntary state until appeals were heard.

So go into court and call the judge names because hey you might get the underlying case tossed on appeal? No I'm sorry but your take is wrong because how it goes is you follow a judges orders, court rules/procedures and you abide by decisions up to the time when either the judge issues a stay of his order/decision pending your appeal or until the higher court rules in your favor.

The contempt case in front of Boasberg is about contempt prior to any appeal. The appeal of the underlying case came after the act of contempt. So the ruling of the court was violated and proper legal procedure was not followed. That proper procedure would have been for DOJ to ask for a stay pending appeal of the temporary restraints Boasberg put on the government. Then if he had declined they should have gone to the appellate level and asked for a stay.

But instead they had the judges ruling to not make those flights but instead of following procedure they put the flights in the air and only later filed appeals. The act of contempt is a separate crime and should proceed in court as such. That is why I decry the appeals panel ruling as they did and they know damned well it is a separate crime. However as I said it will no doubt be used as the path for defeating any and all contempt proceedings of any kind in any court involving this administration going forward.

Just because a court can agree to dismiss a contempt proceeding when the underlying case is dismissed doesn't mean it is required. It should be a rare circumstance. This was not that rare time. They knew every step of the way what they were doing and they plotted specifically for how to defy the court decision.