WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court has ordered a Washington judge to end a contempt of court investigation into the Trump administration’s handling of deportation flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. The ruling, issued Tuesday, says Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in pressing ahead with criminal contempt proceedings over the March 2025 flights. The panel said the administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to have the contempt of court case terminated.
What the appeals panel decided
The three-judge panel from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said Boasberg’s investigation was “intrusive” and should stop. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, writing for the majority, said criminal contempt is available only when an order is clear and specific, and said Boasberg’s March 2025 order did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.
The case centers on flights that were in the air on March 15, 2025, when Boasberg ordered the administration to turn them around. The judge later said the administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order blocking their deportations to El Salvador. In an April 16, 2025 order, Boasberg said he had given the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that none of the responses was satisfactory.
Contempt Of Court dispute deepens
The contempt of court fight has also become a broader clash over the judge’s authority and the administration’s conduct. Administration officials have claimed Boasberg is biased and overstepped his authority. President Donald Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, and last year the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing him of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration.
Rao was nominated by Trump, while Boasberg was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama. Judge Justin Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote separately to concur with Rao’s view. Judge J. Michelle Childs, nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented.
What the judges said
Rao wrote that the legal error at the center of the contempt of court proceedings showed why further district court investigation would be an abuse of discretion. She said the administration’s right to termination of the proceedings was clear and indisputable. Her opinion framed the March 2025 order as too unclear to support criminal contempt.
Childs’s dissent means the panel was divided, but the majority’s ruling is now the controlling step in the case. The order places the focus back on whether any further district court action can continue after the appeals court’s intervention.
What happens next
The immediate next step is that the contempt of court investigation must end unless there is another successful challenge. The ruling leaves in place a sharp judicial split over the March 2025 deportation flights and over how far a district judge can go when a court order is disputed in a fast-moving immigration case. For now, the appeals court has told Boasberg to stop, and the contempt of court fight over the Venezuelan migrant flights has entered its next phase.
