Boasberg details the Trump executive’s stonewalling at the initial emergency hearing and the regime’s subsequent failure to halt ongoing removals. 5/

“It appeared that the Government had transferred members of the Plaintiff class into El Salvador’s custody hours after this Court’s injunction prohibited their deportation under the Proclamation. Worse, boasts by Defendants intimated that they had defied the Court’s Order deliberately and gleefully.” 6/

Boasberg scheduled another hearing, expecting that the Trump exec would “explain that, despite appearances otherwise, none of the people on the first two flights was a member of the Plaintiff class. Or, at worst, Defendants would admit to a grave mistake, explain how it transpired, and detail plans to rectify it.” Neither happened. Instead, more refusals to answer questions. 7/

In his contempt opinion, Boasberg then painstakingly further details the Trump executive’s noncompliance with his orders. 8/

Boasberg acknowledges that the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs had to seek due process in other venues - courts in jurisdictions where individuals were confined but emphasizes that “Court effectively said that the Constitution flatly prohibits the Government from doing exactly what it did that Saturday, when it secretly loaded people onto planes, kept many of them in the dark about their destination, and raced to spirit them away before they could invoke their due-process rights.” 9/

Statutory authority for judicial authority to find and punish disobedience or resistance to court orders is 18 U.S.C. § 401, law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18…. 10/

Ultimately, a judgement of criminal contempt requires prosecution that establishes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant willfully violated a clear and reasonably specific court order. This is why Boasberg now finds only “probable cause” for criminal contempt and gives Trump officials a chance to correct. If they don’t he will then send the matter for full prosecution. 11/

Boasberg knows full well that the Trump DoJ is not likely to prosecute Trump officials who are in criminal contempt of court. He’s being strategic. By making a “probable cause” determination he creates an opportunity to lay out the facts; by giving the Trump regime another chance to comply, thereby “purging” contempt, he keeps their likely further noncompliance in the spotlight. 12/