Appeals court delays Boasberg contempt inquiry into 2026
A federal appeals court has postponed U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt inquiry into the Trump governance until early 2026. The court ordered both the Trump administration and the American Civil Liberties Union to submit briefs addressing whether the district court has the legal authority to conduct the inquiry into alleged “indirect contempt” by the administration. The case involves boasberg’s scrutiny of the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals and whether officials defied court orders to stop deportation flights. The Justice Department has appealed to block the contempt hearings,arguing that Boasberg exceeded his constitutional authority and cannot remain impartial. The appeals court granted a temporary halt to the proceedings but has not ruled on the underlying issues. The controversy also touches on separation-of-powers concerns, with critics claiming the judge’s inquiry intrudes on executive branch decisions.
Appeals court delays Boasberg contempt inquiry into 2026, orders briefing on court’s authority
A federal appeals court on Monday delayed U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s contempt inquiry until the new year and ordered the Trump administration to file briefs in the coming weeks as to whether it believes the district court has the authority to pursue the investigation at all.
In a per curiam order, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit instructed attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union to file a response by Dec. 29 and gave the Trump administration until Jan. 5, 2026, to reply. The panel directed both sides to address the legal basis for Boasberg’s pursuit of what he has for months described as a case involving “indirect contempt” by the Trump administration.
The panel of judges said that the issue they will consider next month is whether a district court may investigate conduct that took place outside a judge’s presence, and whether a jurist may delay referring the matter for prosecution while they look for evidence that misconduct occurred.
“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,” the panel wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 42.
Boasberg has been overseeing litigation challenging the Trump administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals alleged to be members of the Tren de Aragua gang. He had scheduled contempt hearings this week to examine whether administration officials intentionally defied his March order directing deportation flights to turn around while en route to El Salvador.
On Friday, the Justice Department appealed and sought a writ of mandamus to block the hearings and remove Boasberg from the case, arguing he crossed constitutional boundaries and could no longer preside impartially. A divided D.C. Circuit panel granted an administrative stay on Friday, pausing the proceedings and a hearing slated for Monday, while emphasizing that the move did not reflect a ruling on the merits.
JUDGE JAMES BOASBERG SEEKS TESTIMONY FROM DOJ ‘WHISTLEBLOWER’ IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT INQUIRY
The underlying deportation policy has already reached the Supreme Court, which in April allowed the Trump administration to invoke the Alien Enemies Act.
Attorney General Pam Bondi has described Boasberg’s contempt inquiry as unconstitutional and retaliatory, accusing the judge of threatening separation-of-powers principles by investigating internal executive branch decision-making.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
