Live updates: New Swalwell accuser speaks out; Democrats threaten to hold Pam Bondi in contempt of Congress
A federal appeals court in D.C. blocked U.S. District Judge James Boasberg from conducting a contempt inquiry into the Trump administration’s efforts to deport planes full of detainees in March of last year.
This is the second time Boasberg has been blocked from trying to pursue the inquiry.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s order “is appropriate again to forestall unwarranted judicial intrusion into Executive Branch decision-making regarding matters of national security,” Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker wrote in the 2-to-1 decision.
“The harms of further judicial investigation cannot be remedied by a later appeal,” the two judges, who were appointed by Trump, wrote in their opinion. “When the Executive alleges judicial intrusion into its deliberations, courts must recognize ‘the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation.’”
Boasberg needs no further information that a contempt hearing would provide, they wrote.
“The district court already possesses all the information it had represented was necessary, so further investigation is irrelevant to the only decision before the district court, that is, whether to make a referral for criminal contempt,” they wrote.
They added that any such referral “faces a dead end” because the Boasberg’s temporary restraining order to halt the administration’s deportations “did not clearly and specifically say anything about transferring custody of the detainees and therefore cannot support a charge of criminal contempt.”
“As these shifting and expanding proceedings demonstrate, the district court has assumed an improper jurisdiction antagonistic to the Executive Branch,” they wrote.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in dissent that Boasberg should be able to move forward with contempt proceedings.
“We are not reviewing a judgment of contempt made by the trial court, nor are we even reviewing a referral for a contempt prosecution,” Childs wrote. “Instead, we examine an interlocutory order from a district court that, irrespective of its rulings in the underlying case, is just trying to understand the events of a single weekend in March, including the actions which may have led to the willful violation of one of its orders.”
Childs said the appeals court should not issue rulings that “question a trial court’s inherent authority to protect its courtroom and the rule of law.”
“Addressing contempt is an integral part of the trial court’s sacred mystery; it is the key to maintaining the order and safety of the court when applying the law,” Childs wrote. “It is a power so essential for the rule of law that it predates our system of separation of powers and judicial review.”
