ACLU lawyers seek to revive criminal contempt inquiry over flights

If left standing, a ruling from judges appointed by President Donald Trump would let his administration “escape scrutiny and accountability for a transparently deliberate attempt to evade judicial review of its unconstitutional actions and then ignore a judicial order.”

This Video Is Trending Right Now →

That’s what lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union told Washington’s federal appeals court, while urging the court’s full slate of judges to rehear a case decided last month by a three-judge panel. That divided panel ruling, with two Trump appointees in the majority and a Biden appointee dissenting, granted the government’s extraordinary request to terminate contempt proceedings stemming from last year’s deportation flights to El Salvador.

According to D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao’s majority opinion, it wasn’t Trump officials who might be faulted for possibly ignoring U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s orders in their quest to hurry migrants to El Salvador under the president’s legally dubious invocation of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act. Rather, per Rao and fellow Trump appointee Justin Walker, it was Boasberg’s attempt to understand what happened that risks upending the constitutional order.

Rao’s ruling bemoaned the “widening gyre” of the Obama-appointed Boasberg’s “inquest,” as she put it, calling his fact-finding effort “a clear abuse of discretion.” She said the administration already cooperated enough with the judge by naming now-former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer of migrants to the notorious Salvadoran prison known as CECOT.

“The panel’s ruling undermining the district court’s authority to enforce its orders will have implications well beyond this case, as the Executive Branch has continued to violate court orders,” ACLU lawyers wrote in their rehearing petition.