A dissenting Biden-appointed judge critiqued the majority for “cutting factfinding at the knees” and more.
Trump judges give Trump officials a ‘Hail Mary pass’ to avoid contempt inquiry www.ms.now/deadline-whi...
— Skeptical Brotha ðŸ³ï¸â€ðŸŒˆ (@skepticalbrotha.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T21:58:02.780Z
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/boasberg-contempt-trump-administration-deportation-flights-cecot
Facing a criminal contempt probe, President Donald Trump’s administration has been seeking legal shelter. Trump-appointed appellate judges have been providing it.
The latest example came Tuesday, when a divided three-judge panel granted what it admitted was the government’s “extraordinary” request for relief, to terminate contempt proceedings stemming from last year’s deportation flights to a Salvadoran terror prison......
Yet, it’s the two Trump-appointed judges who overstepped, according to the dissenting panel judge, Michelle Childs. The Biden appointee observed that Boasberg was “just trying to understand” the facts, which may have included the government violating his orders. Doing so, she wrote, does not “suggest that the court wishes to intrude in the decisionmaking of the Executive Branch.”
Childs explained that fact-finding is needed to make a referral for a contempt prosecution.
“So, at this juncture, the Government’s separation of powers objection to the district court performing its obligations under the law is not an appropriate basis for the mandamus relief the Government seeks,” she wrote, referring to the extraordinary relief that the majority nonetheless granted on Tuesday.
Or, as Childs put it, the majority’s intervention “chooses the Government’s Hail Mary pass.” She questioned the majority’s foregone conclusion that there was no contempt here, writing that the panel was “cutting factfinding at the knees.” She said she refused “to be pulled into the lagoon with them.”
For all its sharp debate over the separation of powers and judicial integrity, spanning more than 100 pages, Tuesday’s panel ruling might not be the last word. The full D.C. circuit can weigh in, as can the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen what happens on any further review.....
On that note, it may be that Boasberg’s factual inquiry is as far as the matter goes, at least in terms of potential prosecution. But Tuesday’s ruling is the latest reminder that judges sympathetic to the administration don’t want it to come close to that point.
Hopefully an en banc ruling will over turn this ruling. Ultimately, what should happen if Judge Boasberg finds contempt actions are appropriate is that Judge Boasberg appoints a special prosecutor or counsel and Bondi, Blanche and the asshole who is now on the Third Circuit are prosecuted for their actions.
= new reply since forum marked as read