Summary
- D.C. Circuit Court blocked contempt proceedings 2-1.
- Judge Boasberg barred from acting against the Trump administration.
- Case on Venezuelan migrant deportations under 1798 law.
- The majority says the order was unclear, not a criminal act.
- Decisions may be appealed to higher courts.
The case, which is the most recent in a series of high-stakes court battles that have been going on for months in different courts, concerns the administration's alleged violation of an emergency court order that prevented the administration from using a 1798 law to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
Two Trump appointments on the majority-Democrat bench, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, joined the Trump administration on Friday in preventing Boasberg's contempt motion from proceeding.
Obama appointee Judge Nina Pillard dissented.
It is almost certain that the 2-1 decision will either be appealed to the Supreme Court for review or to the whole court for an en banc hearing, where the plaintiffs would likely benefit from the Democrat-majority bench.
"The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,"
Katsas said Friday, writing for the majority.
"Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity."
Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling does not center on the lawfulness of Trump's Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when administration officials invoked the 1798 immigration law to send more than 250 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador.
"Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,"
he added.
"Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has."
"Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal."
Judges who have prevented the president's executive orders from going into effect have been at odds with the Trump administration for months.
What are the legal reasons behind the appeals court's decision to block the contempt proceedings?
The appeals court majority found that the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by Judge James Boasberg was ambiguous at the time it was given. Because the administrative deportations occurred just hours after the TRO hearing and before any transcript was available, the order could reasonably be interpreted in more than one way.
Thus, the court ruled that this ambiguity means the prosecution of criminal contempt based on violating the order could not be sustained.
The majority judges, both appointed by Trump, expressed that the district court's contempt order raised serious questions about the limits of judicial authority over core executive functions, such as foreign policy decisions and the prosecution of criminal offenses.