D.C. Circuit Court blocks Judge Boasberg restraint of ICE deportations
[Neomi] RAO, Circuit Judge: More than a year ago, the President
invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de
Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang and foreign terrorist
organization, and ordered that they be detained and removed
from the United States. In a series of fast-moving events on
March 15, 2025, the government placed a group of alleged
gang members, including plaintiffs in this case, on planes to El
Salvador. After the planes took off and left the country, the
district court ordered the government not to remove the
plaintiffs from the United States.
The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order
because it was premised on a legal error and the plaintiffs’ suit
was brought in the wrong court. Nonetheless, the district court
threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt
unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for
instance, taking back custody of the plaintiffs. We issued a writ
of mandamus vacating the court’s first contempt order.
Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal
contempt for the government’s decision to transfer the
plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the
government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security
Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision.
The district court previously said this was the only information
it required to make a referral for prosecution. But the district
court has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to
extract more information from government counsel about
exactly what happened last March. The government petitions
for mandamus.
The widening gyre of the district court’s investigation
again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt
the judicial “impairment of another branch in the performance
of its constitutional duties.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,...
Dissent:
[J. Michelle ] CHILDS, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Contempt of court is a
public offense, and the fate of our democratic republic will
depend on whether we treat it as such. In the many forms in
which it can be committed, contempt degrades the power that
the People, through their Constitution and Congress, gave the
federal courts. Without the contempt power, the rule of law is
an illusion, a theory that stands upon shifting sands. For
contempt offends not only the authority of whichever judge has
been subjected to such incursions, but it also offends our
system of governance. Addressing contempt is, therefore, a
responsibility that is part and parcel of the court’s duty to
interpret and apply the laws of the governed.
And yet, a court’s inquiry into contempt is a responsibility
that can be just as difficult as it is sacred. The complexity of
this task explains why, for some contempt proceedings,
factfinding is required for a trial court to fairly identify
contemnors, their contumacious acts, and then hold them
accountable. Thus, we cannot judge the early actions of a trial
court in such a proceeding heavy-handedly, for contempt of
court is not addressed for the district court’s vanity; it is done
to preserve and enforce our law. As a court of review, we
preserve the sanctity of these proceedings by reviewing
judgments of contempt with an eye towards vindicating the
dignity and authority of the courts while simultaneously
respecting the individual liberties and rights of contemnors.
Here, unfortunately, we have overstepped in adjudicating this
balance of interests.****
