This article may contain commentary
which reflects the author’s opinion.
A federal appeals court has intervened to halt U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the Trump administration, directing all parties to pause until 2026 while the court reviews whether Boasberg has any authority to pursue contempt at all.
In a December 15 order, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals—Judges Neomi Rao, Justin Walker, and Michelle Childs—granted the administration’s request to delay the matter and ordered both sides to submit detailed legal arguments on the scope of a district court’s contempt powers.
The order came amid escalating tensions between the judiciary and the administration over Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.
The appellate court’s directive requires the respondents to file a response by December 29, 2025, and the administration to reply by January 5, 2026.
The panel instructed the parties to specifically address whether a district court has the legal authority to investigate and delay a criminal referral in a case of so-called “indirect contempt.”
Quoting the order, the panel wrote: “Federal law recognizes that criminal contempt may be direct or indirect. … A court may initiate criminal proceedings for indirect contempt through notice and a referral for prosecution. … In seeking information about decisions made outside the presence of the court and referencing the possibility of a referral for prosecution, the district court appears to contemplate indirect contempt proceedings. … On what legal basis may a district court (1) investigate possible grounds for indirect contempt and (2) delay a referral for prosecution until it finds probable cause that indirect contempt occurred?”
The appellate order effectively postpones Judge Boasberg’s planned contempt hearings and punts the matter into next year, adding yet another delay in a high-profile legal battle that has already drawn national scrutiny.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee and chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has been locked in a months-long dispute with the administration over whether federal officials violated his March order temporarily halting deportation flights to El Salvador.
The flights were part of Trump’s enforcement of the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 law allowing the removal of non-citizens from hostile nations during periods of conflict.
“This is what we in the industry like to call a “benchslap’,” Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, remarked on the judicial order.
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the broader policy question, permitting the administration to continue invoking the Alien Enemies Act while legal challenges proceed.
Last week, the Department of Justice accused Boasberg of bias and asked the D.C. Circuit to remove him from the case entirely, arguing that his actions created a “strong appearance” of personal hostility toward administration officials.
The department claimed the judge’s “pattern of retaliation and harassment” had gone too far, particularly after he ordered testimony from current and former DOJ lawyers regarding the disputed deportations.
“This long-running saga never should have begun; should not have continued at all after this Court’s last intervention; and certainly should not be allowed to escalate into the unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict that it now imminently portends,” the Justice Department said in its filing.
Among those called to testify before Boasberg was Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ attorney turned whistleblower who claimed officials ignored court orders to halt deportation flights.
Reuveni alleged that former senior DOJ official Emil Bove had once remarked during internal meetings that the department might need to “tell the courts ‘f*** you’ and ignore any such court order”—an assertion Bove has flatly denied.
Boasberg’s critics, including Trump himself, have accused the judge of waging a political vendetta against the administration.
The president has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, and more than a dozen House Republicans have co-sponsored articles seeking his removal, citing what they describe as judicial overreach and “open defiance of executive authority.”
For now, the D.C. Circuit’s stay freezes all contempt-related proceedings, leaving Judge Boasberg unable to act until the panel reviews the issue early next year.
