BREAKING: On a 2-1 vote, a D.C. Circuit panel issues an order that would end Chief Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings

[In It to Win It]

Last edited Fri Aug 8, 2025, 11:26 AM - Edit history (1)

Chris Geidner
‪@chrisgeidner.bsky.social‬

BREAKING: On a 2-1 vote, and after much delay, a D.C. Circuit panels issues an order that would end Chief Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings in connection with the March 15 flights.

Two Trump appointees, Katsas and Rao, backed the decision. I would expect the full court to take this up en banc.

Here's the order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.41957/gov.uscourts.cadc.41957.01208764789.0_1.pdf

BREAKING: On a 2-1 vote, and after much delay, a D.C. Circuit panels issues an order that would end Chief Judge Boasberg's contempt proceedings in connection with the March 15 flights.

Two Trump appointees, Katsas and Rao, backed the decision. I would expect the full court to take this up en banc.

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner.bsky.social) 2025-08-08T14:35:29.795Z

BREAKING: In 2-1 ruling, DC Circuit overturns Judge Boasberg's order initiating contempt proceedings against Trump admin over Alien Enemies Act Deportations. Majority Katsas (Trump)/Rao (Trump). Dissent: Pillard (Obama). Order: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein.bsky.social) 2025-08-08T14:32:49.834Z

Here's the full opinion—four in all, totaling 110 pages:

One unsigned opinion from the two Trump judges in the majority.

One from Trump judge Neomi Rao.

Another from Trump judge Gregory Katsas.

And a dissent by U.S. Circuit Judge Nina Pillard.

media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/doc...

— Cristian Farias (@cristianfarias.com) 2025-08-08T15:02:01.974Z

[chicoescuela]

1. but of course they did

[Eliot Rosewater]

2. Like we've been saying, our approach to resolving and fictionist is not going to work

I hate to say it but, oh well.

[UTUSN]

3. "(KRASNOV) judges" - Roy COHN again, "(forget juries, ) Just tell me who the judge is."

[Bettie]

4. The courts will hold they told us

yeah, not so much.

They are bowing down to kiss the orange ass and grovel at his feet.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. I and other expect that this to be appealed to an en banc court

I assume this is going en banc? www.nbcnews.com/politics/tru...

— David Ingram (@davidingram.bsky.social) 2025-08-08T16:03:14.286Z

[LetMyPeopleVote]

6. Deadline: Legal Blog-Trump-appointed judges save DOJ officials from contempt in Alien Enemies Act case

A divided appellate panel majority vacated U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s probable cause order.

Trump-appointed judges save DOJ officials from contempt in Alien Enemies Act case www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...
I’m telling you, we’re screwed if we don’t start fighting hard and dirty

— @livnclean.bsky.social 2025-08-09T02:44:52.550Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/alien-enemies-act-boasberg-contempt-rcna223912

Each of the three judges on the appellate panel in Washington, D.C., wrote their own opinions, contained in a document published Friday spanning over 100 pages. The upshot is that accountability is not likely to come for anyone in the administration who violated Boasberg’s order.

“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it,” Boasberg wrote in April, finding probable cause that government defendants had violated his order.

That sentiment was echoed by the dissent on Friday, with Judge Cornelia Pillard backing her fellow Obama appointee in writing that the panel majority “does an exemplary judge a grave disservice by overstepping its bounds to upend his effort to vindicate the judicial authority that is our shared trust.”

Yet it was Boasberg who overstepped, according to the Trump-appointed judges in the majority, Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao. While noting that the trial judge “was placed in an enormously difficult position” in dealing with fast-paced litigation, Katsas wrote that the government’s conduct “clearly and indisputably was not criminal.” Rao wrote that Boasberg “used the threat of criminal contempt to coerce the Executive Branch to comply with an order it had no authority to enforce.”

Pillard closed her dissent by citing legal principles regarding obeying court orders and the fair administration of justice. “The rule of law means those principles apply to officials in the executive branch just as they apply to all of us,” she wrote. But practically speaking, Friday’s ruling is the latest evidence that that might not be so.

I suspect that this ruling will appealed to entire court for an en banc review