A federal appeals court is signaling that the spectrum of criminal contempt charges linked to the Trump administration may extend beyond Kristi Noem, the former Homeland Security Secretary. Comments made during a hearing suggest officials further up the chain may also face scrutiny.
During a nearly three-hour session on Tuesday, ten of the eleven judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals pressed attorneys from the Justice Department regarding the ongoing contempt investigation initiated by Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
This inquiry follows the controversial deportation of hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador in March 2025. Judge Boasberg had issued an order, seemingly intended to keep many of the men in U.S. custody.
In June, the full appeals court agreed to hear the case after a divided panel earlier ruled that Boasberg should end his investigation. The Justice Department identified Noem as the principal figure responsible for proceeding with the deportations despite the judge’s order.
Judicial inquiries often focus on accountability, and during Tuesday’s arguments, several judges expressed skepticism about the Justice Department’s rationale for limiting accountability to Noem.
“Do we have to just accept what you say?” Judge Michelle Childs, a Biden appointee, challenged Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate, suggesting that Noem might be acting as a “sacrificial lamb.”
Judge Patricia Millett echoed this concern, questioning why Boasberg shouldn’t be allowed to identify additional officials who might share responsibility for the alleged contempt.
The judges seemed to agree that the inquiry could lead to consequences for other figures who may have played a role. Judge Cornelia Pillard warned that limiting the investigation could potentially result in a criminal referral to prosecutors for someone who may have been kept in the dark about the deportation orders.
Shumate argued for halting the investigation, calling it “unlawful, unnecessary and futile,” claiming that it should be the role of prosecutors to investigate alleged crimes, not the courts.
However, Judge Millett pushed back, asking whether judges could determine if there had been contemptuous actions in their courtrooms. Her insistence on clarifying the nuances of what constitutes an investigation underscored the judges’ frustration with the government’s position.
The Justice Department contends that Boasberg’s original order was merely spoken and lacks the authority of a written directive, thereby questioning its binding nature as they relate to the actual deportations.
Lee Gelernt, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union representing the deported migrants, countered that the terms of the judge’s order were clear. He argued the government’s actions highlighted any claims of confusion.
Gelernt stated, “Any prior administration… or any DOJ, I think, prior to this one would have sought clarification,” emphasizing the perception that Noem did not make decisions in isolation.
Shumate cautioned that allowing the inquiry to advance could trigger serious separation-of-powers issues, indicating an escalation in tensions between the judicial and executive branches.
Judge Millett countered, asserting that separation of powers is not a one-way avenue favoring the executive. She emphasized that federal courts must maintain their authority independent of executive influence.
This case ultimately poses critical questions about the extent of judicial authority in overseeing executive branch actions, especially as it relates to the treatment of vulnerable migrants.
If the court rules against the administration, it could lead to more than just accountability for Noem; it might open the door for broader investigations into other Trump administration officials.
The judges did not specify when a ruling might be issued, but should the administration appeal, the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
