Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a 2-1 ruling on April 18, 2025, halting U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s effort to hold President Donald Trump in contempt for failing to “undeport” alleged MS-13 and Tren de Aragua gang members sent to El Salvador. The decision, a temporary administrative stay, pauses Boasberg’s investigation into the administration’s defiance of his order, marking a procedural win for Trump amid a contentious legal battle over immigration policy.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, had issued a March 15 restraining order blocking Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport 261 individuals to El Salvador’s CECOT prison, citing due process violations. When two flights proceeded anyway, Boasberg found “probable cause” of criminal contempt, accusing the administration of “willful disregard.” He ordered the deportees’ return by April 23 for court hearings, threatening contempt proceedings. The ACLU, which requested an emergency hearing on April 18 to stop further deportations, praised Boasberg’s initial ruling as a “strong rebuke,” but he declined to rule, citing a recent Supreme Court decision balancing Trump’s deportation authority with judicial oversight.
The appeals court’s stay, backed by two Trump-appointed judges with Obama appointee Judge Nina Pillard dissenting, followed an emergency appeal by Attorney General Pam Bondi, who called Boasberg’s order a “judicial power grab.” The court clarified this was not a merits ruling but a pause for further review. Legal experts like Jonathan Hafetz see the stay as a setback for due process, while the Justice Department argues it protects executive authority.
The ruling sparked polarized reactions on X. Users like
@vilas_sp7 celebrated it as a “big win for Trump,” labeling Boasberg’s actions a “power trip,” while
@BehizyTweets called for Boasberg’s impeachment and a probe into his finances—a claim Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked as baseless, affirming appeals as the proper response to judicial disputes. Boasberg’s record, including denying a 2017 bid to access Trump’s tax records, suggests a balanced approach, undermining partisan accusations.
The case highlights the clash between Trump’s deportation agenda and judicial checks, with the Supreme Court’s April 7 ruling allowing deportations but mandating due process—a balance Trump’s critics say he ignored. If contempt proceedings resume, Boasberg could appoint an independent prosecutor, though Trump’s pardon power could intervene, as seen with Joe Arpaio in 2017. For now, the appeals court’s stay buys the administration time in a high-stakes immigration fight.
