D.C. Circuit Stays Judge Boasberg's Criminal Contempt Proceedings

A panel of the D.C. Circuit is encouraging Judge Boasberg to adopt a more deliberate approach.

Late yesterday, the motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an administrative stay delaying the criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump Administration initiated by Judge Boasberg. The stay was imposed by a majority of the panel (Judges Katsas and Rao). Judge Pillard disagreed with the decision to impose a stay.  The order gives the panel more time to consider the Trump Administration's emergency order to say the proceedings.

The order reads:

Upon consideration of the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or, in the alternative, a writ of mandamus, it is

ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the district court's contempt-related order entered on April 16, 2025, be administratively stayed pending further order of the court. The purpose of this administrative stay is to give the court sufficient opportunity to consider the emergency motion for a stay pending appeal or a writ of mandamus and should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion. See D.C. Circuit Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 33 (2024). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellees file a response to the emergency motion by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 23, 2025. Any reply is due by noon on Friday, April 25, 2025.

A footnote provides:

Judge Pillard would not administratively stay the challenged order. In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay.

Comments

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump was a tad lucky to get those three judges.

[MaddogEngineer]

So...when a ruling goes in Trump's "favor", it's luck or Trump appointed judges being sycophants. But when a ruling goes against him, it's proof that he's destroying the rule of law?

At some point here, the questionable behavior of both sides needs to be recognized by others.

As I've tried to say in other comments, there is a valid line of inquiry Boasberg could be pursuing here. Vengeance for supposedly defying his vague order in a situation complicated by fast moving events is not it.

[Sarcastr0]

That's not what Joe said. I see nothing in his comment attempting to delegitmize the decision.

Don't be so eager to pick a fight.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

Amazing finger-wag!!! I love how you finger-wag both sides in the spirit of equity!

[John F. Carr]

The judges who stayed the order were political appointees in the first Trump administration.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Which judges are not politically appointed?

[Michael P]

Not all current judges had been appointed by the end of the first Trump administration, although all three of the judges on this panel -- and Judge Boasberg -- were.

[John F. Carr]

They worked for the first Trump administration in political roles before becoming judges. Compare Kagan (former solicitor general) with Sotomayor (no prior federal government experience other than as a judge).

[bernard11]

fast moving events??

What fast-moving events? The whole thing seems to be moving at a glacial pace, and it seems to me that the Administration is teh one dragging its feet.

Meanwhile, while the learned jurists take their own good time mulling the matter, Garcia sits in prison.

[Kazinski]

This case doesn't have any relation to Garcia's case, at best they are cousins by marriage.

[bernard11]

My mistake.

So it's the airplane turnaround case? It's people other than Garcia who are sitting in CECOT.

Hard to keep track of all of Trump's lawbreaking.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Trump's game is being played with no greater speed than a typical thimble rigger uses to hide the pea. Fast-moving events in a game of that sort, being played for life-or-death stakes, call not for measured deliberation, but for the fastest responses possible.

[wvattorney13]

Two trips to SCOTUS in a month and you believe that pace is glacial?

Try criminal law sometime. Takes years or more than a decade even for a meritorious post conviction proceeding to play out. This is positively light speed.

[Purple Martin]

Maddog, you must have missed Josh Blackman yesterday...

The D.C. Circuit must intervene here. I know it was fashionable to dunk on the Fifth Circuit as this rogue right-wing court, but in candor, that court was never quite that conservative. There are many moderate members who can tip the en banc vote. The D.C. Circuit, by contrast, has an over-whelming liberal majority, and will have that majority for a generation.

[Drewski]

I'd prefer if Pillard's view carried the day but I'm not going to get upset by an order on an emergency motion that temporarily maintains the status quo pending further briefing.

[Rossami]

I disagree. Contempt proceedings should be immediately appealable since the judge is already acting as both judge and fact witness. I might feel differently if contempt proceedings were immediately handed off to another judge for decision but that's not the rule. The current structure is an inherent conflict of interest. But if we're not going to solve the root problem, we can at least make them all immediately appealable to minimize the damage.

[John F. Carr]

The judge is preparing a case for a neutral prosecutor to try before a neutral judge. There is no conflict of interest.

[wvattorney13]

What neutral judge? Boasberg will be the judge in a case that he already decided needs prosecuting. That setup has been part of the commentary on this issue in all of the articles.

[David Nieporent]

Contempt proceedings should be immediately appealable since the judge is already acting as both judge and fact witness.

Not sure what that has to do with Drewski's comment since there haven't been any contempt proceedings yet.

[Magnus Pilatus, MBA, MD, JD, PhDx2]

I love how in these threads people simultaneously believe we operate under the Rule of Law while also believing the choice of judge is pretty determinative of the outcome in any politically charged case and who nominated the judge is a clear indicator of the judge's decision-making.

Those aren't compatible beliefs.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

The Rule of Law is a fiction handy for Men to pretend their interpretations of written laws are somehow not Rule of Men. Goes right along with precedents changing and split decisions. If Laws were as clear and objective as the Rule of Law crowd claims, there wouldn't be so many Men disagreeing over their meaning.

[Sarcastr0]

The rule of capitalizing like a normal human seems beyond you, so not surprising you also have trouble with other baseline concepts.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Says the guy with a non-grammatical handle who can't respond to the comment with anything relevant.

And speaking of which, where your verb in that second half?

[Michael P]

I'm just a critic, but to me it looks like the verb in the second half is "[you] have".

Leaving out the "it is" before "not surprising" is pretty common in that kind of construction. You should find better nits to pick.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

I didn't start the nit picking. Perhaps you are the one picking the wrong nit.

[NvEric]

Contempt charges are contemptable for Judge Boasberg taking the case in the wrong place and for acting unconstitutionally. SCOTUS has already said so, therefore Judge Boasberg must drop everything in order to give himself a scrap of legitimacy and save the Republic.

[David Nieporent]

SCOTUS in no way even hinted that Boasberg "acted unconstitutionally."