Appeals court weighs contempt fight over Venezuela deportations to El Salvador

A federal appeals court weighed a fight that reaches beyond one deportation case and into the reach of judicial power over immigration enforcement. At issue was whether the Trump administration defied Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg when it sent two planes of Venezuelan migrants toward El Salvador after he tried to stop the removals under the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order on March 15, 2025, in J.G.G. v. Trump, then expanded it to cover everyone detained and in danger of removal under the wartime statute. He later said the administration failed to turn the planes around, even as the flights continued toward El Salvador. More than 200 Venezuelans were ultimately deported to CECOT, the Salvadoran prison officially known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement, and CBS News reported that most of the men had no apparent criminal record.

In an April 16, 2025 ruling, Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt and said the administration’s conduct showed a “willful disregard” of a court order. He said he would first allow the government to “cure” the violation, including by giving deportees a chance to challenge their detention in El Salvador, before moving to sanctions. He also warned that he could require officials to testify under oath to identify who ordered the flights to continue and could seek criminal prosecution if the violation was not fixed.

The administration fought back on separation-of-powers grounds, arguing that the judiciary was intruding on executive decisions tied to national security and foreign policy. In later litigation, the government said then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was the official responsible for the transfer decision. The broader legal question was not only about one set of flights, but about whether a court can use contempt powers to force accountability when the executive branch proceeds despite an order.

In 2026, a divided D.C. Circuit panel shut down the contempt inquiry. Judge Neomi Rao wrote that the probe was a “clear abuse of discretion” and an “intrusive criminal contempt investigation” into executive deliberations, saying it risked encroaching on areas committed to the political branches. The ruling set up a sharp test of how far courts can go in policing executive action, especially when immigration enforcement is carried out under wartime authority.