A federal appeals court signaled on Tuesday that it may revive a stalled contempt investigation involving Trump administration officials who allegedly ignored a judge's orders to halt deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants to a prison facility in El Salvador.
The full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals conducted a rare en banc hearing to address whether the district court judge overseeing the case, James E. Boasberg, has the authority to investigate which officials may have defied his March 2025 orders to stop the migrant flights. The court’s decision, expected within months, could either allow the contempt inquiry to proceed after delays or serve as a preliminary ruling before the matter reaches the Supreme Court. A smaller, three-judge panel of the same court had paused the contempt proceedings in April.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 during his administration to classify dozens of Venezuelan migrants as members of the Tren de Aragua gang. According to Boasberg, these migrants were not provided an opportunity to contest their alleged gang affiliations in court before being deported to El Salvador. Despite the judge’s emergency order to halt the flights in March 2025, then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem proceeded with the transfers, as she disclosed in a declaration submitted for the case.
Boasberg initiated a contempt inquiry in April 2025 to determine if the court’s order had been violated. Justice Department attorneys contend that no such violation occurred. Many of the migrants have since been returned to Venezuela.
Of the 11 active judges on the D.C. Circuit, seven were appointed by Democratic presidents, three by Trump, and one by President George H.W. Bush. The Trump appointees have previously voted to block the contempt proceedings, but a majority of judges have expressed in writing their view that Boasberg acted appropriately in launching the investigation. This majority stance appeared consistent during Tuesday’s hearing.
Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by Barack Obama, emphasized the importance of executive branch compliance with judicial orders, warning that disregarding them threatens the authority of Article III courts. Similarly, Judge Patricia Millett, another Obama appointee, stressed the need to identify all officials involved in the decision to defy the court, suggesting Noem might be targeted as a “sacrificial lamb.” Judge J. Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, also voiced support for further inquiry.
The Justice Department argued that Boasberg’s investigation encroaches on prosecutorial discretion, a core executive function, and criticized the judge’s inquiry as an overreach. Brett Shumate, representing the government, said that the judiciary should not assume the role of investigator and prosecutor in this matter. Judge Neomi Rao, appointed by Trump, acknowledged that determining who violated the orders is a key prosecutorial question.
Representing the Venezuelan migrants, attorney Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union cited a 1987 Supreme Court ruling affirming federal courts’ inherent authority to appoint private counsel to pursue contempt charges independently of the Justice Department. Gelernt maintained that Boasberg had conducted the inquiry carefully and that no previous administration had taken actions as severe as those under review.
During the hearing, Judge Millett underscored the principle of checks and balances, asserting that separation of powers applies equally to the judiciary and the executive. "It’s not a one-way street in favor of the executive branch," she said, adding that the contempt power is essential for courts to maintain their functioning.
The court’s forthcoming decision could shape the boundaries of executive authority and judicial oversight in the enforcement of court orders related to immigration enforcement policies.