Boasberg's Trump Contempt Probe Returns: Appeals Court Weighs Trump Administration's Deportation Flight Fight

A major legal battle between Donald Trump and federal Judge James Boasberg has returned to the spotlight, with the full US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit weighing whether Boasberg can continue investigating possible criminal contempt by Trump administration officials.

The court heard three hours of arguments on September 29 as the Justice Department urged the judges to terminate Boasberg's inquiry. Several judges appeared sceptical of the government's position, raising questions about whether Boasberg should be allowed to establish who was involved in the disputed deportation flights.

Boasberg's Contempt Fight Returns

The dispute dates back to March 2025, when Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from transferring Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act.

After the order was issued, two aircraft carrying migrants departed for El Salvador despite Boasberg's direction that the flights be turned around.

The administration has denied violating the judge's orders. Boasberg subsequently launched a contempt inquiry into whether officials had deliberately defied the court and whether anyone should face criminal contempt proceedings.

The administration has maintained that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the decision to proceed with the transfers.

But the latest appeals court hearing centred partly on whether Boasberg should be allowed to determine whether other officials were involved before any potential prosecution is considered.

Appeals Judges Challenge Trump Administration

Justice Department lawyer Brett Shumate urged the full D.C. Circuit to end Boasberg's investigation, calling it 'unlawful, unnecessary and futile'.

Shumate argued that Boasberg had gone beyond his judicial role by attempting to investigate executive branch officials and determine who might have violated his order.

Several judges, however, questioned that argument.

Judge Patricia Millett asked why Boasberg should not be able to continue gathering facts to determine whether other officials were involved. Judge J. Michelle Childs similarly suggested that the inquiry could simply be an effort to establish what happened before any decision about prosecution.

Judge Cornelia Pillard also raised concerns about the consequences for judicial authority if executive officials could disregard court orders without facing scrutiny.

The Mystery Over Who Ordered the Flights

That question could become central if the contempt inquiry is allowed to continue.

The Trump administration has pointed to Noem as the official responsible for proceeding with the deportation flights. But judges at the hearing questioned whether that explanation was sufficient to end the investigation.

Millett said Boasberg should be able to determine 'who was in the room providing the advice', while Childs questioned whether the administration was effectively presenting Noem as the only person responsible for the decision.

Boasberg has also sought testimony from senior Justice Department officials, including a former department lawyer who later became a whistleblower.

The investigation therefore extends beyond the question of what happened to the migrants. It is now also a dispute over how much authority a federal judge has to investigate possible defiance of a court order by senior executive branch officials.

Trump's Wider Clash With Boasberg

The contempt dispute has become one of the most prominent legal confrontations between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary.

Trump has previously called for Boasberg to be impeached, while the Justice Department has filed a misconduct complaint against the judge. Chief Justice John Roberts has publicly rejected calls for the impeachment of federal judges.

The appeals court battle now raises a broader question about the balance between executive power and judicial authority.

The Justice Department argues that allowing Boasberg's inquiry to continue would improperly intrude into executive decision-making. The ACLU, representing Venezuelan migrants involved in the underlying case, argues that courts must have the ability to enforce their orders.

A Major Ruling Still Pending

The full D.C. Circuit has not yet ruled on whether Boasberg can resume his contempt inquiry.

An 11-judge panel is now considering the case after a divided three-judge panel ruled in April 2026 that Boasberg should end the investigation. All 11 sitting judges subsequently voted to rehear the dispute en banc.

The eventual ruling could determine whether Boasberg is permitted to continue examining the events surrounding the 2025 deportation flights or whether the contempt investigation must finally end.

Either way, the case has grown far beyond the original deportation dispute. It now presents a significant test of how far federal judges can go when investigating alleged violations of their orders, and how much room the executive branch has to contest those orders after the fact.