Show summary Hide summary
Attorneys for a group of Venezuelan migrants are asking the full D.C. Circuit to rehear a panel decision that halted a criminal contempt probe into their removal to El Salvador — a move that could reshape how federal judges enforce orders against the Executive Branch. The petition comes after a divided three-judge panel effectively stopped a lower court’s investigation into whether officials disobeyed an order to return planes carrying detainees bound for a notorious Salvadoran prison.
At the heart of the dispute is a rare clash over judicial authority and accountability. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg had found probable cause that the government violated a March court order directing planes carrying 238 Venezuelan nationals be turned back; the detainees later said they suffered abuse at El Salvador’s CECOT facility. A mid-April appellate ruling, however, blocked further contempt proceedings.
The ACLU, representing the detainees, filed for rehearing en banc, arguing the panel misread the district order and improperly foreclosed both fact-finding and referral for prosecution. The petition frames the panel’s decision as an extraordinary limitation on a federal court’s power to enforce its own directives.
Trump to nominate Cameron Hamilton for FEMA leadership: return after last year’s ouster
Cheyenne water reliability work to start next week: hydrant inspections and pipe flushing
What the petition says
The ACLU’s motion presses two central points. First, it says the three-judge panel wrongly concluded the district court’s order was too ambiguous to support criminal contempt, even though government counsel had told the court they understood the command. Second, the filing argues the panel’s ruling removes any path — either through the district court’s continued fact-finding or by referral to prosecutors — for meaningful inquiry into the removals.
In the filing’s words, the panel’s approach “shields Defendants from further inquiry” and risks signaling that the Executive can evade judicial orders through after-the-fact explanations that manufacture ambiguity where none existed.
- Key judges involved: The April panel opinion was written by Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker; Judge J. Michelle Childs dissented.
- District finding: On April 16, Judge Boasberg found probable cause of criminal contempt based on an admitted violation of a March order.
- Scope of the removal: The case centers on two flights carrying 238 Venezuelan migrants who were removed under the Alien Enemies Act and later detained at CECOT.
- Legal stakes: The petition argues the panel’s ruling conflicts with longstanding mandamus precedents and threatens the judiciary’s ability to enforce its orders.
The ACLU also points to a broader pattern of alleged noncompliance nationwide, citing district-court findings that include hundreds of post-order violations in several jurisdictions. Those examples are offered to underscore the petition’s warning that the panel decision could have consequences far beyond this single case.
Process history and procedural posture
The current rehearing request asks the full court — all active judges on the D.C. Circuit — to reconsider the panel’s mandate. The D.C. Circuit has already split at earlier stages: a larger group of judges previously signaled support for allowing a contempt inquiry to proceed, and at one point the court declined to grant immediate review after a different panel vacated a preliminary probable-cause finding.
What happens next is procedural: the full court may grant rehearing en banc, deny it, or leave the panel ruling in place. Each outcome carries different implications for how lower courts can pursue contempt investigations when the Executive is accused of flouting orders.
Why this matters now
Judges and litigants around the country watch this litigation because it tests whether federal courts retain effective tools to enforce injunctions against government agencies. If the en banc court agrees with the panel, district judges could face new limits on conducting fact-finding or referring officials for prosecution when orders are allegedly violated. If the full court sides with the ACLU and Judge Boasberg, it would reinforce the judiciary’s authority to police compliance.
The case also raises immediate human concerns: the petition recounts claims that the removed migrants endured mistreatment while detained overseas — allegations that, if substantiated, would heighten urgency on both legal and humanitarian grounds.
Whatever the en banc court decides, the dispute is likely to reverberate through separation-of-powers litigation and future enforcement disputes between judges and the Executive Branch.
