Trump Administration Appeals to Block Judge Boasberg’s Contempt Inquiry Over Migrant Deportations
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration has escalated a legal confrontation by asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to halt a contempt inquiry led by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. The inquiry centers on the administration’s controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, a case that has stirred deep tensions between senior Trump officials and immigration lawyers representing the affected individuals.
In a writ of mandamus filed on December 12, 2025, Justice Department attorneys argued that Judge Boasberg’s contempt investigation is an “idiosyncratic and misguided inquiry” that exceeds the district court’s jurisdiction. The filing seeks to terminate the contempt proceedings entirely or, at minimum, to block the testimony of two Department of Justice officials who were scheduled to appear for questioning next week.
The Trump administration’s legal team also requested that the appeals court reassign the case away from Boasberg, accusing the judge of engaging in “a pattern of retaliation and harassment” throughout his oversight of the matter. The filing warned that allowing the inquiry to proceed could provoke an “unseemly and unnecessary interbranch conflict,” threatening the separation of powers and undermining attorney-client privilege.
Judge Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, reignited the contempt probe following his earlier efforts to temporarily block the administration’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. This federal statute, rarely invoked in modern times, has been used by the Trump administration to justify expedited removals of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, prompting legal challenges from immigration advocates.
The Department of Justice’s arguments echo prior filings, emphasizing that criminal contempt is a power reserved for the executive branch. DOJ lawyers contended that the court’s inquiry “exceeds its authority and is now intruding on the prerogatives of a co-equal branch,” underscoring the constitutional tensions at play.
This legal standoff highlights the broader controversy surrounding the administration’s immigration policies. The Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has been at the center of aggressive deportation efforts, while advocacy groups and legal representatives for migrants have pushed back against what they describe as unlawful and harsh measures.
Judge Boasberg’s scrutiny of the administration’s actions has been a flashpoint since early 2025, when he issued emergency orders to halt deportation flights under the Alien Enemies Act. The judge’s decisions have drawn sharp criticism from Trump officials, who accuse the judiciary of overreach.
As the appeals court considers the administration’s request, the legal community watches closely. The case raises critical questions about the balance of power between the judiciary and the executive, especially in the context of immigration enforcement.
For further context on the Alien Enemies Act and its historical application, the National Archives provides detailed background. The Department of Justice’s role in prosecuting contempt matters is outlined on their official site, offering insight into the executive branch’s authority in such cases.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Courts website offers resources on federal court procedures, including contempt inquiries. The ongoing dispute underscores the complexities of immigration law and the high-stakes nature of judicial oversight in politically charged cases.
As the December 12 appeal deadline passed, the appeals court’s decision on whether to intervene remains pending, with significant implications for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy and the judiciary’s role in checking executive actions.
Leave a Reply