The 2-1 decision in In re: Donald Trump, No. 25-5452, marks the second time the D.C. Circuit has blocked contempt proceedings arising from the March 15, 2025 deportation flights. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote the opinion for the court, joined by Circuit Judge Justin Walker. Circuit Judge Michelle Childs dissented.
The panel described the district court's continuing inquiry as an encroachment on the political branches. "The widening gyre of the district court's investigation again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt the judicial 'impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties,'" Rao wrote, quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.
The government had identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision and submitted declarations from Noem and senior counsel at the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security. The district court then scheduled hearings to question two witnesses who had served as counsel for the government when the TRO issued — one who has since filed a whistleblower complaint alleging misconduct by DOJ officials, and a second who continues to serve as government counsel in the underlying litigation. Plaintiffs' counsel were permitted to participate in that questioning.
Rao wrote that the district court already had what it said it needed. "The government has identified Secretary Noem as the responsible official and also provided further declarations from other high-ranking officials. The district court now possesses the information it identified as necessary to make a referral for prosecution." She added that "any further judicial investigation is irrelevant, which only bolsters the government's need for mandamus relief."
The opinion also found the TRO itself insufficiently clear to support criminal contempt. "The TRO simply said nothing about transferring custody, nor did the district court prohibit the transfer of custody in oral statements," Rao wrote. "In our constitutional system of government, criminal liability cannot turn on the unstated intentions (or post hoc assertions) of a district court judge."
The Supreme Court had vacated the TRO in Trump v. J.G.G., holding that the plaintiffs' challenge "fall[s] within the 'core' of the writ of habeas corpus" and had been filed in the wrong venue. The district court nonetheless proceeded with criminal contempt, reasoning that "the fact that the TRO was legally unsound is no obstacle to a [criminal] contempt conviction."
In a concurrence, Walker rested his analysis on a single exchange at the March 15 hearing. Before issuing the oral order, the district judge told government counsel, "I will issue a minute order memorializing this so you don't have to race to write it down." Walker wrote that this line "simplifies this otherwise complicated case because it made the written order supersede the oral order." The written order, issued at 7:25 p.m. that day, enjoined only future removals.
Childs dissented at length. "Contempt of court is a public offense, and the fate of our democratic republic will depend on whether we treat it as such," she wrote. "Without the contempt power, the rule of law is an illusion, a theory that stands upon shifting sands."
Childs argued the panel had intervened too early. "Today, we are not reviewing a judgment of contempt made by the trial court, nor are we even reviewing a referral for a contempt prosecution," she wrote. "Instead, we examine an interlocutory order from a district court that, irrespective of its rulings in the underlying case, is just trying to understand the events of a single weekend in March."
She warned of downstream effects. "Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court's order, that they did not commit contempt before contempt findings are even made. And now, in any challenge where one may wave the wand of separation of powers, the Government knows it can petition this court for mandamus to relieve it from such proceedings."
The panel acknowledged its ruling rests against a backdrop of continuing U.S. operations against the Maduro government. Rao wrote that the AEA Proclamation "has since been followed by broader diplomatic and military initiatives against the regime of Nicolás Maduro, in which United States forces captured Maduro and brought him to the United States to face conspiracy charges for narco-terrorism, cocaine trafficking, and possession of illegal weapons."
The writ orders the district court to terminate the criminal contempt proceedings.