It’s always a good day when a federal judge with terminal Trump Derangement Syndrome gets b-slapped by a higher court for being such a judicial degenerate and politicizing his position to ‘get one over’ on the president of the United States. That happened earlier today.
The legal clash between U.S. District Judge James Boasberg and President Donald Trump took a significant turn after a federal appeals court indicated that Boasberg’s contempt effort could not proceed.
The D.C. appellate panel also raised concerns about the scope of Boasberg’s actions, signaling that parts of his approach may have exceeded judicial authority. The dispute stems from the Trump administration’s decision not to comply with an insane order to turn around deportation flights that had left U.S. airspace without any thought whatsoever about the potential dangers and logistics involved. It prompted Boasberg to file ridiculous contempt charges.
Can Judge Boasberg sanction @TheJusticeDept attorneys for following his own written order? No, explains the D.C. Circuit. Judges Rao and Walker grant the extraordinary writ of mandamus stopping the ongoing contempt proceedings. Long overdue. Judge Childs dissents in 80 pages. pic.twitter.com/MOnB8XcZGA
— Eric W. (@EWess92) April 14, 2026
A federal judge must end his “intrusive” contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order turn around planes carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.
Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in forging ahead with criminal contempt proceedings over the March 2025 deportation flights, according to the majority opinion by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
President Donald Trump’s administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to the termination of the contempt proceedings, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.
“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg’s March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”
The Federalist’s legal analyst, Margot Cleveland, put it nicely: Boasberg “got spanked.”
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 14, 2026
4/Boasberg just ignored first decision! pic.twitter.com/FtjwaATnRL
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 14, 2026
6/ widening and unnecessary! pic.twitter.com/NcUBgADw2e
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 14, 2026
8/ lol cites ABC and NY Times pic.twitter.com/ZsSLIU75OS
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 14, 2026
10/10 only skimmed opinion so may have missed it but did anyone on panel highlight Boesberg misrepresented his own order during contempt proceedings?
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 14, 2026
So, all in all, he’s a big doses of STFU, James. Get over yourself. And your TDS.
hr />
