Contempt proceedings trump administration were halted after a divided U.S. Court of Appeals panel ordered Chief Judge James Boasberg to stop his inquiry into whether officials should face criminal contempt for deportation flights.
The case centers on March 2025 flights that sent Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador despite a lower-court order to pause transfers, a decision the appeals panel called an abuse of discretion.
Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the majority, joined by Judge Justin Walker, saying the lower court had exceeded its authority by probing high level national security and foreign policy decisions.
Boasberg had previously found probable cause to believe the government may have willfully disobeyed his order, and he said the Constitution does not tolerate such disobedience by officials who swore to uphold it.
The Justice Department denied violating the order, arguing the judge’s initial directive was delivered orally and not reflected in a written order, and it identified then‑DHS Secretary Kristi Noem as responsible for allowing the deportations to continue.
The department confirmed Noem authorized the rapid removal of 100 Venezuelan men to a high security Salvadoran prison despite Boasberg’s explicit order to keep them in U.S. custody, and said she moved forward after legal advice from senior DOJ officials including then‑Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Emil Bove.
Department lawyers urged Boasberg’s removal in an emergency filing, calling his investigation radical and unconstitutional and describing the inquiry as a fishing expedition aimed at prolonged testimony.
Judge Michelle Childs dissenting, the appeals court temporarily forestalled the contempt investigation while the higher court reviewed the scope of permissible inquiry into executive branch decisions.
Justice Department Rulemaking And Discipline Of Government Lawyers
The Justice Department separately proposed a regulation asking state disciplinary authorities to delay investigations of current or former DOJ lawyers until the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility completes its own review.
The proposal followed high profile incidents such as letters from Ed Martin to Georgetown University officials, which prompted a D.C. Bar inquiry and led the bar’s Disciplinary Counsel to file two formal charges.
The charges accuse Martin of violating his oath to uphold the Constitution and of improper ex parte communications with judges, while Martin has argued the D.C. Bar lacks authority because he was working for the president.
The article noted the department’s regulatory push mirrors past efforts, including the Thornburgh memorandum and the later Reno Rule, which courts and Congress limited, and it cited the McDade Amendment specifying government attorneys remain subject to state rules.
Critics pointed to Office of Professional Responsibility statistics showing limited outputs, with 17 investigations closed in 2024 and 10 summaries posted in 2025, and many commenters opposed the proposed rule during the public comment period.
The piece argued federal courts are often best positioned to address alleged misconduct that arises in their proceedings, while state disciplinary authorities may lead when facts are uncontested and no federal confidentiality concerns exist.
