Judge blisters Trump appointees in brutal dissent

A judge in the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals issued a blistering dissent in a case about an ongoing fight between chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge James Boasberg, and two appeals court judges appointed by President Donald Trump.

The case involves the ongoing battle about a court order that the Boasberg issued in April 2025, demanding that any plane sending migrants out of the United States to the CECOT prison in El Salvador be turned around. The order was allegedly ignored by the Trump administration. Boasberg has spent the past year trying to have a proceeding to uncover who made the decision to ignore the court order so he can hold them in contempt.

Twice, the Trump-appointed appeals court judges have ordered a "stay" and attempted to throw out the case. On Tuesday, they issued another ruling demanding that the case be thrown out, claiming that Boasberg overstepped his authority when he began the "intrusive" contempt proceedings.

They claim that because the contempt investigation hasn't gone anywhere, the probe should be ended entirely. The reason the probe hasn't gone anywhere is that those same judges issued two stays, putting the case on hold for 363 days.

In her dissent, Judge Michelle Childs explained why contempt of court is not only a public offense but a crime and should be treated as such.

"In the many forms in which it can be committed, contempt degrades the power that the People, through their Constitution and Congress, gave the federal courts. Without the contempt power, the rule of law is an illusion, a theory that stands upon shifting sands. For contempt offends not only the authority of whichever judge has been subjected to such incursions, but it also offends our system of governance. Addressing contempt is, therefore, a responsibility that is part and parcel of the court’s duty to interpret and apply the laws of the governed," wrote Childs.

She explained that for her colleagues to claim that the fact-finding mission has ended and that Boasberg has overstepped this early in the process doesn't hold up.

"We cannot judge the early actions of a trial court in such a proceeding heavy-handedly, for contempt of court is not addressed for the district court’s vanity; it is done to preserve and enforce our law," Childs wrote.

It's her colleagues, she argued, who have overstepped their authority.

"Here, unfortunately, we have overstepped in adjudicating this balance of interests," said Childs.

She explained that they aren't even making a decision about findings or a judgment for contempt; they're only trying to stop the investigation from happening.

"Instead, we examine an interlocutory order from a district court that, irrespective of its rulings in the underlying case, is just trying to understand the events of a single weekend in March, including the actions which may have led to the willful violation of one of its orders," she wrote.

Then she dropped the hammer.

"Instead of properly rejecting the current petition to end the district court’s factual inquiry, the majority has determined that no further facts are needed because, as a matter of law, the alleged contemnors just cannot have committed contempt," Childs wrote. "In so doing, the majority has stymied the district court’s inherent and statutory powers and done so in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings but will also echo in future proceedings against all litigants. Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court’s order, that they did not commit contempt before contempt findings are even made. And now, in any challenge where one may wave the wand of separation of powers, the Government knows it can petition this court for mandamus to relieve it from such proceedings. I cannot agree with an approach that sets such precedent."

She closed by saying, "There is no question that there could be much to fear in a factual inquiry about the actions of potential contemnors who may have defied a court order. However, that does not mean that this court must intervene to end a criminal case before it begins, even for the Executive Branch."