Overview

A federal appeals court is set to deliberate whether a criminal contempt inquiry into the Trump administration should proceed concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.

Key Figures

Kristi Noem, former Homeland Security Secretary, plays a central role in this dispute. The government identified her as the official responsible for allowing Venezuelan detainees to be transferred to El Salvador’s CECOT prison in March 2025 despite a judge’s order blocking their removal.

Arguments and Inquiry

The full D.C. Circuit will hear arguments regarding whether a judge can continue his inquiry and potentially issue a criminal contempt referral.

Background of the Dispute

The issue began in 2025, when the Trump administration moved to deport Venezuelan migrants it claimed were members of the Tren de Aragua gang, using the Alien Enemies Act. Two planes carrying detainees were already airborne on March 15, 2025, when Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order. This order barred the government from removing the migrants for 14 days or until further court order.

Despite the order, the planes continued to El Salvador. The Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s order, stating challenges needed to be made in the federal districts where migrants were detained. Boasberg persisted with his contempt inquiry, arguing the later ruling didn’t excuse the government’s potential violation.

Government’s Response

Boasberg found probable cause in April 2025 that the government had violated his order and considered a criminal contempt inquiry. The government identified Noem as the official who authorized the detainees’ transfer to El Salvador, claiming she acted after receiving legal advice.

The government contended that the oral order issued by Boasberg wasn’t binding and noted the subsequent written order didn’t explicitly demand the return of migrants who had departed.

Legal Proceedings

In April 2026, a three-judge appeals court panel ordered Boasberg to conclude the contempt inquiry. The panel argued the written order lacked clarity for criminal contempt regarding the transfer. It also criticized Boasberg for delving into high-level Executive Branch discussions on national security and diplomacy.

The full D.C. Circuit agreed to reassess the panel’s decision. They will rule on whether Boasberg can pursue his inquiry. If continued, Noem might face a criminal contempt referral, contingent on adequate evidence.

Support and Advocacy

In August, 204 former judges urged the appellate court to permit the contempt inquiry, deeming the investigation appropriate.

The en banc court will hear arguments on Tuesday.