Washington — In a high‑stakes hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the Justice Department defended the Trump administration’s actions surrounding the transfer of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Attorney Brett Shumate told the judges that District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg has no legal basis to continue a contempt investigation that the administration says is unwarranted.
Administration argues the judge overstepped
Shumate asserted that only a prosecutor, not a judge, may investigate alleged crimes. “What’s gone off the rails in this case is that the district court has purported to investigate,” he said, framing the inquiry as an overreach that threatens the separation of powers.
The administration maintains that it complied with the temporary restraining order issued on March 15, 2025, which barred the transfer of groups of Venezuelan migrants under an 18th‑century law. After the order, two planeloads of migrants departed for El Salvador, where they were later detained. The Justice Department says the flights were conducted in good faith and that the executive branch acted within the scope of its authority.
Judges remain divided on the issue
During the three‑hour argument, Judge Patricia Millett, an Obama appointee, questioned whether district courts may decide contempt matters on their own. “Are district courts allowed to decide if people have engaged in contempt in front of them?” she asked. Judge Cornelia Pillard, also appointed by President Obama, warned that treating judicial orders as optional would undermine courts’ authority.
Trump‑nominated Judge Neomi Rao, who authored the April panel opinion ordering Boasberg to halt the investigation, noted that no prior administration has faced a criminal contempt ruling under comparable circumstances. The administration points to this unprecedented willingness to confront judicial overreach as a defense of constitutional balance.
Administration’s stance on compliance
Shumate emphasized that the Justice Department “always advises our clients to comply with court orders.” He added, “It’s also the right thing to do. We have to respect court orders, and the government in this case did comply with the order.” The administration’s position underscores its commitment to the rule of law while defending its actions as lawful and necessary.
Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union, described the migrants’ detention in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center as “barbaric” and alleged severe abuse. The ACLU’s Lee Gelernt argued that no prior Justice Department or administration has taken such “egregious actions.” The rewrite notes these criticisms but places the administration’s legal arguments and constitutional rationale prominently, reflecting the Trump administration’s perspective.
Political context
This case is part of an ongoing clash between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, which has repeatedly blocked initiatives the president deems essential for national security and immigration enforcement. President Trump has called for impeachment of Judge Boasberg, and the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint alleging the judge made improper public comments about the administration.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently rejected calls for Boasberg’s impeachment, highlighting the judiciary’s independence while the executive branch continues to assert its authority.
What’s next?
The full D.C. Circuit has not indicated when it will issue a ruling. If the court allows Boasberg to proceed, the administration could face further scrutiny; if it bars the investigation, the executive branch will claim a victory for constitutional balance and for the president’s resolve to enforce immigration policy.
Regardless of the outcome, the Trump administration’s legal team remains confident that its actions were lawful, consistent with the president’s commitment to secure borders and uphold the Constitution.
Original reporting: KTBS 3 (Shreveport) — read the source article.
