D.C. Circuit Court, 2-1, blocks Judge Boasberg restraint of ICE deportations

 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.****