'Ugly and deceptive': 2 Trump-appointed judges just gave him a 'cue to push the envelope'

12 August

U.S. President Donald Trump holds an 'Investing in America' event in the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., April 30, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis

A recent ruling by a panel for the second-most powerful court in the United States may have just "emboldened" President Donald Trump to flout the judiciary.

That's according to a Tuesday piece by the Washington Post editorial board. The Post's editors argued that a decision by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (considered the most powerful court outside of the Supreme Court) to vacate a lower court ruling finding the administration was likely in contempt for ignoring an order sets a dangerous precedent going forward.

In the decision, Judges Gregory G. Katsas and Neomi Rao — both of whom were appointed by Trump during his first term — disagreed with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg's contempt ruling for two different reasons. Katsas wrote that Boasberg's order for Trump to ground deportation flights to El Salvador earlier this year following the administration's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was too vague to be followed. And Rao wrote that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction to rule on deportations, after the Supreme Court ruled that the detained immigrants had to sue in the states where they were living, rather than in Washington D.C.

The lone dissent on the panel came from Cornelia Pillard, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama. The Post observed that she made "a strong case" that any ambiguity in Boasberg's ruling was "manufactured" after the fact in order to provide cover for the administration. But because Katsas and Reo overrode her, any hope of upholding Boasberg's ruling will come down to whether plaintiffs want to pursue what's known as an en banc decision from the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

But according to the paper, Trump is effectively insulated from any legal accountability regardless of how judges rule. Boasberg's proposal that an outside, private attorney handle the contempt investigation is constitutionally dubious and may not withstand scrutiny. Additionally, the Trump administration is unlikely to prosecute its own personnel for contempt of court, and Trump could also pardon anyone charged with criminal contempt.

The Post's editorial board acknowledged that while Trump's response to Boasberg's order was "ugly and deceptive," any effort to hold the administration in contempt should for a more clear-cut reason than in the case of the deportation flights.

"This might not be the right case because of the technicalities around jurisdiction and the timing of Boasberg’s orders," the Post wrote. "Though the judiciary is showing forbearance, Trump rarely does. If his administration takes this victory as a cue to push the envelope next time, judges do not need to go along."

Click here to read the Post's full editorial (subscription required).

From Your Site Articles