A recent ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has put a halt to a district court’s move toward prosecuting federal officials for criminal contempt in connection with the rapid deportation of alleged members of Tren de Aragua. The divided panel granted the government’s petition for a writ of mandamus, effectively vacating the district court’s previous probable-cause order. The appeals court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the lower court’s actions at this juncture, but decided the extraordinary remedy of mandamus was necessary due to the ambiguities surrounding the temporary restraining order (TRO) central to the contempt dispute. Read more about the initial proceedings.
The case traces back to March 15, 2025, when a proclamation by President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act against certain Venezuelan nationals, resulting in a TRO that aimed to prevent their removal. Despite this, more than 100 detainees had already been deported, reaching El Salvador via Honduras. The legal dynamics became more complex as El Salvador later released the group in a prisoner exchange and transferred them back to Venezuela. Additional details about the government’s actions further clarify the international moves surrounding the deportations.
Judge Gregory Katsas and Judge Neomi Rao, who formed the majority opinion, highlighted that the TRO was too ambiguous to sustain charges of criminal contempt. They emphasized the necessity of a clear order, which they believed was lacking in this case. Judge Katsas noted that the required clarity involved whether the order intended “removing” to mean departing US territory or handing over custody to another nation. Since the flights had already left US soil before the TRO’s issuance, he found no grounds for contempt.
In her separate opinion, Judge Rao argued that once the Supreme Court vacated the TRO, the district court could not wield it as leverage for compliance or enforcement. Her concern was that such actions encroach on foreign affairs, an area traditionally reserved for the executive branch.
Judge Cornelia Pillard, dissenting, contended that denying the mandamus was premature and would impair the judicial ability to hold accountable those who disobey court orders. She noted that any ambiguity should be the subject of a detailed contempt proceeding, not resolved through an extraordinary writ.
This ruling, which vacated the lower court’s probable-cause finding, stalls further district court contempt investigations related to this matter. Meanwhile, broader litigation concerning the Alien Enemies Act proclamation and the detainees’ due-process rights continues across various judicial platforms. The Supreme Court has already intervened to ensure detainees retain some ability to seek habeas corpus review amidst the ongoing legal battles.