Federal Court Proceedings Restart: Boasberg to Determine Sufficiency for Contempt Referral Against Trump Administration Officials.

Chief Judge Resumes Contempt Inquiry Over Deportation Flight Ban

The Washington Post reports that Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg has resumed his contempt inquiry into which Trump Administration officials violated a March 2025 court order barring deportation flights to El Salvador, after a seven-month pause for appeals. Judge Boasberg said the inquiry is not to decide contempt yet but to determine whether there is sufficient information to make a referral, including witness statements from a Justice Department whistleblower, Erez Reuveni, and DOJ attorney Drew Ensign. The inquiry follows evidence that officials continued deportation flights despite the order, and a majority of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently confirmed that Judge Boasberg may proceed

A federal judge (Judge Boasberg) has restarted proceedings to assess whether the facts and record suffice to refer certain former administration officials for contempt of court. These proceedings focus on whether those officials complied with prior judicial orders, whether any failures to comply were willful, and whether referral for contempt (or other enforcement measures) is warranted. Therefore, parties and practitioners should closely track scheduling orders and preserve all documentary and testimonial evidence relevant to compliance and intent.

What’s happening now

• The court is reviewing the administrative record, prior orders, and any supplemental filings to decide whether the threshold for a contempt referral has been met.
• Proceedings may include written submissions, evidentiary hearings, and targeted fact-finding about compliance timelines and agency decision-making.
• Possible outcomes range from no referral to a formal contempt referral or other remedial measures tailored to the specifics of the case.

Why this matters

• Accountability: contempt referrals show that courts will enforce their orders and can impose sanctions where appropriate.
• Precedent & practice: this matter may influence future judicial expectations about agency compliance and recordkeeping.
• Operational impact: agencies under scrutiny may need to strengthen compliance monitoring and document-retention practices.

Immediate steps for affected parties & counsel

1. Preserve and collect records — emails, memos, decision documents, meeting notes, and custody logs.
2. Prepare concise declarations from key custodians explaining processes, timelines, and compliance efforts.
3. Review prior orders and map each requirement to available evidence showing compliance or attempts to comply.
4. Organize a chronology tying actions to dates and decisionmakers — provide a short, tabbed timeline for the court.
5. Consider privilege carefully but avoid altering or destroying responsive materials; spoliation risks are serious.

Practical implications for practitioners

• Expect tight deadlines and possible evidentiary hearings.
• Translate complex agency processes into short, plain-language exhibits to aid judicial review.
• Propose targeted discovery or limited fact-finding to resolve disputed compliance issues efficiently.
• Preserve appellate issues and maintain a complete record for any post-referral proceedings.

FAQs

Q: Does a contempt referral mean criminal charges?
A: No — a referral starts an enforcement pathway but does not itself impose criminal penalties; further steps would be required for criminal contempt charges.

Q: What should a witness or custodian do?
A: Preserve original documents, create a contemporaneous event log, and consult counsel about secure and privileged disclosure options.

How we help

We prepare compliance chronologies, draft custodian declarations, assemble exhibit binders and timelines, handle privilege and spoliation reviews, and represent clients at enforcement hearings. Request a Court Chronology Template, a Press/Client Alert, or a Custodian Declaration template.