More than 200 former federal and state judges have thrown their weight behind U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg's investigation into whether the Trump administration committed criminal contempt of court, filing an amicus brief at the D.C. Circuit that calls his inquiry 'uncontroversial' and historically grounded.
The brief, submitted through Democracy Defenders Fund and former Obama White House ethics czar Norm Eisen, argues that three episodes from American history confirm courts have long exercised authority to investigate executive branch resistance—even at its most extreme.
Background
The legal battle traces back to March 15, 2025, when Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking Alien Enemies Act deportations of Venezuelan nationals and alleged gang members to a Salvadoran prison. The judge also ordered the administration to turn around any planes already in flight. They did not comply.
For months afterward, Boasberg pressed for answers on whether government officials 'willfully' violated his order and who decided to transfer deportees out of U.S. custody. By December 2025, after the D.C. Circuit ruled he was 'free to require the government to identify the decision makers,' Boasberg moved to determine if there was probable cause that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem committed criminal contempt.
The judge found 'cursory declarations' from Noem and other officials insufficient and ordered fired DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign to testify under oath about the decision-making process. The Trump administration appealed, and in late June 2026, the full D.C. Circuit agreed to rehear the case en banc.
The Charges
The DOJ has argued that Boasberg already possesses sufficient information to refer Noem for criminal contempt prosecution but is instead staging a 'pointless spectacle.' Government lawyers contend compelling testimony from Reuveni and Ensign poses 'a mortal threat to attorney-client privilege' and that these attorneys 'cannot shed light on the Secretary's scienter because neither advised her nor has any other basis to opine on her mens rea.'
The department urges the D.C. Circuit to either end Boasberg's inquiry or force him to issue a referral 'without compelling further testimony,' arguing the judge has 'strayed far beyond his proper role' in investigating executive intent.
Key Takeaways
- 204 former federal and state judges filed amicus brief supporting Boasberg's investigative authority
- Judges cite three historic precedents: Jefferson-Burr (1807), Jackson contempt fine, Lincoln habeas corpus suspension
- Inquiry centers on whether government 'willfully' violated March 2025 deportations order
- Former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem remains central figure in potential criminal contempt referral
- D.C. Circuit granted en banc rehearing of the case in late June 2026
What's Next
The full D.C. Circuit will determine whether Boasberg exceeded his authority by compelling testimony from DOJ attorneys or whether his investigative approach aligns with historical precedent. A ruling could reshape the balance between judicial inquiry and executive branch privilege in contempt cases.