The quashing by the District of Columbia Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals of a criminal contempt order against the Trump administration is a signature legal victory for the 47th president against a judge he labels a “lunatic.”

The vote to overturn the district judge, James Boasberg, was by a two-to-one margin. In the majority were Judges Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both appointed by President Trump. The dissent was filed by Judge Cornelia Pillard, an appointee of President Obama.

Judge Boasberg has emerged as one of Mr. Trump’s highest-profile foes on the bench, with the president labeling him a “deranged left wing lunatic” and calling for him to be impeached. The judge, an appointee of Mr. Obama and a graduate of Yale and Yale Law School, found a powerful defender when Chief Justice Roberts rejected those calls for impeachment in a rare statement. 

Mr. Trump’s wrath against Judge Boasberg was piqued by a set of contentious hearings over deportations of illegal migrants that the government alleges were sworn to the Tren de Aragua gang, a designated terrorist organization. Judge Boasberg ordered that two United States Air Force planes carrying those migrants to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center be turned around mid-flight. The planes did not turn around. 

The government asserts its right to deport members of Tren de Aragua under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, which delivers the president expansive powers of removal in the case of a “war” or “foreign invasion.” Judge Boasberg blocked the use of that statute, but the Supreme Court overruled him and moved the cases out of his jurisdiction to Texas. 

Judge Boasberg has pursued contempt charges despite no longer presiding over the merits of the case. Secretary Rubio directly called out Judge Boasberg for meddling in American foreign policy and encroaching on the prerogatives of the executive branch. 

The Department of Justice denies intentionally disobeying any orders, and argued that Judge Boasberg’s verbal orders from the bench — they were later memorialized in writing — ought not to be considered binding. The judge, though, found that the government exhibited a “willful disregard” for his commands and determined that there was “probable cause” to initiate criminal contempt proceedings.

Judge Boasberg’s ruling came down in April in the form of a 46-page decision that declared that “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officers of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” Judge Boasberg reckoned that the administration’s disregard of his order amounted to a “grave mistake” that warranted the possibility of fines or imprisonment — penalties for a “guilty” contempt verdict.

The D.C. Circuit, though, has now determined that it was Judge Boasberg who made a mistake in what it calls an “extraordinary, ongoing confrontation between the Executive and Judicial Branches.” The decision, written by Judge Katsas, reasons that Judge Boasberg’s ruling surfaces “troubling questions about judicial control over core executive functions like the conduct of foreign policy and the prosecution of criminal offenses.”

Mr. Trump appealed Judge Boasberg’s order under the All Writs Act, which authorizes federal courts to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” Here, that takes the form of a Writ of Mandamus, where the D.C. Circuit orders Judge Boasberg to vacate his plan to initiate contempt proceedings. Mandamus is considered an “extraordinary” remedy. 

The appellate court’s majority reasons that Judge Boasberg’s order that the administration refrain from “removing” the migrants was ambiguous — it could have meant a ban on physically removing them from American territory, or a prohibition on relinquishing custody. In criminal law, the riders explain, any ambiguity redounds to the benefit of the defendant, here the Trump administration. 

The Supreme Court has warned with respect to the judicial power of contempt that this “fusion of legislative, executive, and judicial powers summons forth the prospect of the most tyrannical licentiousness.” Judge Katsas, though, acknowledges sympathy for Judge Boasberg who “was placed in an enormously difficult position. Faced with an emergency situation,” he had to “rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours.”

Sharper words come from the pen of Judge Rao, who writes that “this case is highly unusual, and I have found no other like it, perhaps because no district court has threatened criminal contempt against Executive Branch officials as a backdoor to coercing compliance with an order that has been vacated by the Supreme Court.” She dilates on Judge Boasberg’s “error” and the “potential for abuse in future cases” in voting for mandamus.

Judge Pillard’s dissent echoes Judge Boasberg’s original decision in arguing that  “our system of courts cannot long endure if disappointed litigants defy court orders with impunity rather than legally challenge them. That is why willful disobedience of a court order is punishable as criminal contempt.”

Ms. Bondi celebrated the victory on X, writing, “Our @TheJusticeDept attorneys just secured a MAJOR victory defending President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport illegal alien terrorists.” The ruling, though, could still be appealed to the full D.C. Circuit — and eventually to the Supreme Court.