<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A federal appeals court weighed on Tuesday whether to allow U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to move forward with a criminal contempt inquiry into Trump administration officials regarding last year’s deportations of Venezuelans to El Salvador, as Justice Department lawyers allege the judge’s investigation is “unlawful.”</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Boasberg, appointed by former President Barack Obama, has issued multiple rulings against the Trump administration. He previously found probable cause to hold government officials in contempt for allegedly violating an order to halt the deportation of a group of Venezuelans being flown to a maximum security prison in El Salvador. The federal judge had sought to determine which officials allegedly violated his order, even examining then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, through additional fact-finding but was shut down by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit earlier this year. The full bench of the D.C. Circuit elected to review the case, leading to Tuesday’s arguments over whether to allow Boasberg’s inquiry to proceed.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The D.C. Circuit has a 7-4 majority of judges appointed by Democrats, including four appointed by Obama, three by President Donald Trump, three by President Joe Biden, and one by former President George H.W. Bush.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">DOJ lawyer Brett Shumate stated that Boasberg’s inquiry was “unlawful, unnecessary, and futile,” claiming that the judge crossed the line by attempting to perform the role of a prosecutor through his investigation.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">“The district court is investigating criminal contempt, and in our system of government, district judges do not investigate or prosecute crimes. That’s a role for a prosecutor, and so the purpose of the investigation at this point is no longer, ‘Let’s figure out who the decision-maker was.’ It is now, ‘Let’s probe the mental state of senior government officials,'” Shumate said, alleging that Boasberg has exceeded his authority by delving into internal executive branch decision-making.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The panel of 11 U.S. circuit judges that heard Tuesday’s arguments questioned Shumate over his request to quash Boasberg’s inquiry, asking why Boasberg could not continue gathering information before deciding whether to make a criminal referral for contempt.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">One judge on the panel challenged Shumate’s assertion that the separation of powers dictates judges should “refer the matter to a prosecutor to further investigate,” specifically regarding how orders from judges can be enforced against the government if the courts cannot investigate contempt.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union urged the D.C. Circuit to allow Boasberg’s contempt inquiry to continue, discussing the harm the deportations caused to their clients.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">A majority on the full appeals court appeared likely to permit Boasberg’s contempt inquiry to proceed but did not provide a firm indication of how they would rule. The D.C. Circuit did not specify a timeline for a ruling, but a decision is expected in the coming months.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The eventual ruling by the federal appeals court can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court previously vacated the underlying order that Boasberg claims officials violated, leading to his contempt inquiry.</p>