"Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump Administration sought to stop contempt proceedings by Chief Judge James Boasberg against Trump officials involved in the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador last year despite contrary court orders.
What happened in this case?
In March 2025, Trump ordered that a number of Venezuelan immigrants who were allegedly part of a gang be detained and deported to a prison in El Salvador. A federal lawsuit was filed, and Judge Boasberg, who had been nominated by President Obama, issued orders unsuccessfully seeking to stop the deportation and hold Trump officials involved in contempt. As requested by the plaintiffs, Judge Boasberg began another criminal contempt investigation against Trump officials to get to the bottom of what happened and hold officials accountable.. The Trump Administration filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the DC Circuit court of appeals to stop the proceeding.
Trump judge Neomi Rao issued a 2-1 decision, joined by Trump judge Justin Walker, which granted the writ of mandamus and stopped the contempt proceedings. Judge Michelle Childs, who was nominated by President Biden, dissented in the April 2026 ruling in In re Trump.
What was the rationale of Trump judges Rao and Walker?
Judge Rao’s opinion maintained that Judge Boasberg’s investigation would “probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy,” which she claimed the district court did not properly have the authority to conduct and violated the separation of powers. The contempt proceedings, she and Walker concluded, are a “clear abuse of discretion” and should be stopped.
Why did Judge Childs dissent?
In an 80-page dissent, Judge Childs strongly disagreed. She criticized the majority for stopping the proceedings long before completion, rather than hearing an appeal after they were done. This has “stymied the district court’s inherent and statutory power,” she wrote, in a way that will “echo in future proceedings against all litigants.” As a result of the ruling, Childs concluded, the government can simply “wave the magic wand of separation of powers” and petition for a writ of mandamus to completely “relieve it” from contempt proceedings.
Why is this decision harmful?
The impact of this ruling by Trump judges Rao and Walker remains uncertain, since it is likely that an effort will be made to persuade the full DC Circuit to rehear the case. As of now, however, the ruling clearly helps President Trump and his administration to avoid any accountability for the deportation of Venezuelans to El Salvador last year and sets a bad precedent concerning contempt proceedings, particularly in connection with the enforcement of court orders. The case also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.