The three-judge panel vacated the district court’s December 8, 2025 order and directed the lower court to end the contempt case entirely. Circuit Judge Rao wrote for the majority, which included Circuit Judge Walker.
The court stated it was acting "in accordance with the opinion of the court filed herein this date," suggesting a fuller written opinion accompanies the order, though that opinion was not included in the materials provided.
The ruling dissolves an administrative stay that had been in place since December 12, 2025, giving the district court 21 days before the order becomes effective. The court also dismissed as moot both Trump's emergency motion for a stay and the government's request for reassignment of the criminal contempt proceedings.
Circuit Judge Childs filed a dissenting opinion, indicating the panel was divided 2-1 on whether to grant the mandamus petition. The nature of her objections to the majority's reasoning was not detailed in the brief order, though her dissent suggests she would have allowed the contempt proceedings to continue.
Circuit Judge Walker filed a separate concurring opinion, suggesting he agreed with the ultimate result but may have had additional thoughts on the legal reasoning or scope of the ruling.
Mandamus petitions are extraordinary remedies typically reserved for situations where a lower court has clearly exceeded its authority or where no adequate alternative remedy exists. The D.C. Circuit's willingness to grant such relief suggests the panel found significant legal error in the district court's handling of the contempt proceedings.
The timing of the ruling, coming more than four months after the December district court order, indicates the circuit court may have given careful consideration to the complex legal and procedural issues involved. The case appears to stem from criminal contempt proceedings that were initiated in the district court, though the specific nature of the alleged contemptuous conduct is not detailed in the order.