The courts too often legislate from the bench. And usually it’s against Republicans.
But now Donald Trump demanded an appeals court give him a huge victory.
Trump Administration Seeks Emergency Appeals Court Intervention in Boasberg Contempt Probe
In a last-minute filing on Friday, lawyers for the Trump administration petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s revived criminal contempt inquiry into the March deportation of over 100 Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, describing the probe as an overreach that risks a “circus” of interbranch conflict.
The emergency writ of mandamus, submitted just before a 5 p.m. deadline, urges the appeals panel to quash the proceedings entirely or, at minimum, block scheduled testimony from two Justice Department officials next week—while also requesting Boasberg’s removal from the case for alleged “retaliation and harassment.”
DOJ Warns of Executive Overreach as Boasberg Demands Testimony from Key Officials
The government’s 20-page brief echoes arguments lodged earlier this week with Boasberg, asserting that his fact-finding mission into potential willful defiance of a March 15 temporary restraining order exceeds judicial authority and encroaches on core executive functions like criminal investigations.
“Criminal contempt is a criminal offense, and the investigation and prosecution of crimes is [a] core executive power reserved to the Executive Branch,” DOJ attorneys wrote, framing the inquiry as an “idiosyncratic and misguided” intrusion that could chill attorney-client privilege and separation of powers.
Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, revived the probe after the D.C. Circuit—sitting en banc—vacated a prior ruling last month and remanded the matter, clearing the way for witness examinations to clarify the administration’s decision to proceed with flights despite his oral and written directives to ground them.
He has ordered Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign to testify Monday, followed by former DOJ lawyer Erez Reuveni on Tuesday—Reuveni, fired in April after whistleblowing on the episode, has publicly accused superiors of intentionally sidestepping orders.
“The Court thus believes that it is necessary to hear witness testimony to better understand the basis of the decision to transfer the deportees out of United States custody in the context of the hearing on March 15, 2025,” Boasberg wrote in his Monday order, noting that emerging details—like DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s authorization based on DOJ and DHS legal advice—warrant scrutiny but deeming a prosecution referral “premature” at this stage.
Roots in March Flights: Alien Enemies Act Clash Fuels Ongoing Judicial Showdown
The dispute stems from Trump’s unprecedented peacetime invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members—over 137 Venezuelans and some Salvadorans—flown to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison on March 15, despite Boasberg’s emergency bid to halt the operation over due process concerns.
The administration maintains two planes were airborne and thus beyond recall, while the third flight involved standard immigration removals unaffected by the AEA-specific order—a position later upheld by the Supreme Court, which ruled Boasberg lacked jurisdiction over the flights themselves.
Noem, in a recent declaration, affirmed her role in greenlighting the transfers post-briefing on Boasberg’s order, relying on counsel’s guidance that it didn’t bind the operation.
The ACLU, representing the deported class, has pushed for broader testimony, including from Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove (now a Third Circuit judge), but Boasberg has so far limited the scope.
Should the inquiry advance, DOJ lawyers seek protective orders for privileged material, limits on questioning, and exclusion of plaintiffs—while warning of “unseemly” escalation absent appellate relief.
Trump has branded Boasberg an “activist judge,” and the move is poised to rile congressional Republicans, though the appeals court has yet to signal its response. Boasberg, undeterred, remarked last month: “This has been sitting for a long time… and I believe justice requires me to move promptly on this.”
