US appeals court ends investigation into contempt for migrant deportations – JURIST Clio

US appeals court ends investigation into contempt for migrant deportations – JURIST

 Clio

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on Tuesday ordered a federal judge to end his investigation into the Trump administration’s disregard for deportation flights of Venezuelan migrants.

In a 2-1 decision, the majority ruled that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia abused his discretion in conducting a criminal contempt trial.

Boasberg issued On March 15, a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued prohibiting the deportation of Venezuelan migrants Foreign Enemies Lawon the grounds that it violated due process. However, two planes were already in the air when he ordered them to turn back, and the government allowed flights to El Salvador to continue. Boasberg found that Trump officials “willfully disregarded” the order and launched an investigation to find out who authorized the violation of his order.

The Supreme Court cleared the case a month later. Boasberg nevertheless continued with the contempt investigation, reasoning that this ruling did not retroactively excuse the government’s defiance while his TRO was in effect. The D.C. District Court dismissed the contempt case in August, but Boasberg continued the investigation.

Tuesday’s ruling finally ended the investigation and banned further investigations. Judge Neomi Rao wrote:

A (further) investigation by the district court represents an abuse of discretion. Criminal contempt only occurs in the event of violations of a clear and specific order. The TRO did not clearly and explicitly prohibit the government from transferring plaintiffs to Salvadoran custody. The TRO cannot therefore support criminal contempt, and the district court clearly abused its discretion by initiating this investigation into the decision-making of senior executive branch officials.

In contrast, Judge J. Michelle Childs disagreed:

Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court order, that they have not committed contempt before contempt findings have even been made.

Lawyers for the deported migrants plan to ask the full DC Circuit to review this decision.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *