COLUMN: DC Circuit en banc — the criminal contempt against Trump resumes, and it is historic

June 22, 2026: a rare en banc decision

On June 22, 2026, all 11 active judges of the DC Circuit made a move few commentators anticipated: they agreed to rehear en banc the case In re: Donald J. Trump (case number 25-5452), vacating the order of a three-judge panel that had halted Judge James Boasberg's criminal contempt inquiry. Oral arguments are set for September 29, 2026. This is a rare decision, heavy with meaning, and perhaps the most consequential of the entire Trump II judicial era.

The immediate context: what set all this in motion

It all starts with a single night in March 2025: 137 Venezuelan nationals, designated by the Trump administration as members of the gang Tren de Aragua, were loaded onto planes and sent to the CECOT prison in El Salvador — despite an express order from Judge Boasberg to suspend those deportations. The judge found "probable cause" for criminal contempt. A DC Circuit panel then blocked his inquiry in April 2026. On June 22, the full court undid that block.

When the full complement of active judges on a federal appeals court decides to take a case into their own hands, something extraordinary is happening. This is not an administrative meeting. It is a strong institutional signal: certain judges believe that what the Trump administration did — deliberately ignoring a court order — is serious enough to warrant the attention of the entire court, not just a panel of three.

The legal definition and its thresholds

Federal criminal contempt of court is a serious offense within the American judicial system. It can be applied when a person or entity deliberately violates a federal court order. For a judge to initiate criminal contempt proceedings, they must establish "probable cause" of intentional violation. This is not a routine administrative matter — it is a criminal procedure that can, in theory, lead to massive fines or imprisonment for those responsible.

Why this is unprecedented in modern times

There is no modern precedent for a criminal contempt proceeding launched by a federal judge against a sitting president of the United States or their administration. The few historical cases involving contempt against government agencies were generally resolved through negotiations or civil orders. What is unfolding in the Boasberg case is therefore without equivalent in recent American legal history — which explains why the DC Circuit judged it necessary to rule in full formation.

I have to be honest: I do not know with certainty what the en banc court will decide. Nobody does. But the simple fact that it agreed to hear the case — rather than leaving the panel's block in place — is already a victory for the rule of law. It is the difference between an institution that stays silent in the face of power and one that says: we have not rendered our verdict yet.

A facility with a documented reputation

The Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), located in Tecoluca, El Salvador, was built under President Nayib Bukele and inaugurated in 2023. Its capacity is 40,000 detainees. Human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented extreme conditions: overcrowding, sleep deprivation, no access to lawyers, allegations of torture. Salvadoran prisoners — some accused wrongly according to their families — have died in this facility.

The legitimacy of the designations

The Trump administration designated the 137 Venezuelans as members of Tren de Aragua on the basis of evidence that Judge Boasberg deemed insufficient to justify deportation without a hearing. Critics noted that the primary designation method used was the presence of tattoos — a criterion recognized by gang experts as highly imprecise. Some of the deportees reportedly claimed no criminal affiliation, without any ability to demonstrate it before a court, since they were given no hearing.

Tattoos as proof of guilt. That is the basis for deportations to CECOT. I am not saying Tren de Aragua is not a dangerous gang — it is. But sending men to one of the world's harshest prisons on the strength of tattoos, without a trial, is crossing a line I once thought uncrossable in the United States. Apparently, I was wrong.

Key events, month by month

In March 2025, Judge Boasberg issues an emergency order to block the deportations. The Trump administration proceeds anyway. In April 2025, Boasberg declares that there is probable cause for criminal contempt. In May 2025, the Supreme Court orders that future deportees must receive reasonable notice and be able to contest their removal. In April 2026, a DC Circuit panel halts the contempt inquiry. On June 22, 2026, the full DC Circuit vacates that block and schedules oral arguments for September 29, 2026.

The role of the 174 former federal judges

A particularly notable element of this case is the filing of an amicus curiae brief — a friend-of-the-court submission — signed by 174 former federal judges. These individuals — Republicans and Democrats alike, appointed by presidents of different parties — co-signed a document affirming that the Trump administration had violated fundamental rule-of-law principles by ignoring court orders. This is not an ordinary political act. These are people who dedicated their careers to the bench, collectively saying: this time, it is different.

174 former federal judges. I want to stop on that number. These are not activists. They are not theorists. They are practitioners of law who sat on the bench, ruled, convicted, acquitted. When they say together that something is serious, they deserve to be heard. Their collective memory represents decades of American jurisprudence. And they are saying: what this administration did deserves examination.

Why the panel halted the inquiry

The three-judge DC Circuit panel that blocked Boasberg's inquiry in April 2026 cited several arguments: first, that a criminal contempt inquiry against an executive administration raised separation-of-powers questions without clear precedent; second, that certain of Judge Boasberg's procedures were questionable from a procedural law standpoint. Those arguments did not persuade the full DC Circuit, which judged it necessary to revisit the question in full formation.

The reach of the en banc reversal

When the DC Circuit vacates one of its own panel decisions en banc, it sends a strong signal of institutional unity. The June 22, 2026 ruling means that a majority of the 11 active judges — not just a panel of three — believes the contempt inquiry can proceed. This is not yet a ruling on the merits: the September 29 oral arguments will allow both sides to make their case. But the mere fact that the court went this far is exceptional.

What I understand from the judicial movement of June 22 is that the en banc court refused to let the Trump administration walk away unscathed from its defiance of court orders. This is not yet a conviction. It is a refusal to look the other way. And in the current context, that refusal to look away is already a great deal.

Secretary Noem at the center of the case

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem is one of the central figures in the criminal contempt case. It was under her supervision that the deportations to CECOT proceeded, despite Judge Boasberg's order. The judge explicitly named DHS officials in his probable-cause analysis. The en banc inquiry will turn in part on whether individual administration officials can be personally subject to a criminal contempt proceeding.

The doctrine of executive immunity and its limits

The Trump administration argued that executive officials enjoy substantial immunity in the exercise of their functions, and that the contempt inquiry constitutes a judicial intrusion into the conduct of foreign policy and immigration — domains reserved for the executive. Judge Boasberg rejected that argument, emphasizing that no immunity covers the deliberate violation of a court order. The en banc court must now settle this fundamental debate about the limits of executive immunity.

Executive immunity is a real and legitimate doctrine — presidents and their cabinet members need a degree of protection to do their jobs without being paralyzed by constant litigation. But there is an obvious limit: that immunity cannot cover a deliberate refusal to obey a court. If it did, courts would cease to function as counterweights. They would become stage props.

The Trump administration's thesis

The Trump administration contends that questions of immigration and foreign policy — including relations with El Salvador and the fight against gangs — fall exclusively within executive authority. A federal court, it argues, lacks the power to order the return of persons already deported to a sovereign foreign state. This argument draws on decades of jurisprudence recognizing the executive's prerogative in foreign affairs, and on the claim that Judge Boasberg's initial order was itself overreaching.

Judge Boasberg's thesis and the plaintiffs' position

Judge Boasberg and the immigrant defense organizations responded that the question is not whether the president can pursue aggressive immigration policy — he can — but whether a president can ignore an express court order on procedural grounds. Even in domains reserved to the executive, courts retain the authority to ensure that legal procedures are followed. When the Trump administration proceeded with the deportations despite Boasberg's order, it crossed that line.

I find myself in an uncomfortable position: I understand the executive prerogative argument on foreign policy. It is a serious argument. But the other argument — that a government ignoring court orders destroys the separation of powers — is even more serious. Between the two, I choose the rule of law. Not because it is easy, but because the alternative is worse.

The format of en banc oral arguments

The oral arguments of September 29, 2026 before the DC Circuit en banc will convene with all 11 active judges present. Lawyers representing the 137 Venezuelans and their advocacy organizations will argue in favor of allowing the criminal contempt inquiry to proceed. Government lawyers will argue for ending the proceeding. Each side will likely have 20 to 30 minutes to present its strongest arguments before the full formation.

The central questions to be examined

Three principal questions will structure the arguments: first, can a federal judge launch a criminal contempt inquiry against an executive administration that violated an emergency order? Second, do DHS officials benefit from immunity that shields them from this proceeding? Third, was Boasberg's initial order legally valid, or was it itself problematic? The answer to all three questions will determine the future of the contempt inquiry.

September 29, 2026 will be a date to remember. That day, the finest constitutional lawyers in the United States will argue before 11 judges the most fundamental question of our era: is the American executive above the courts? I am not exaggerating. That is literally the question. And the answer those 11 judges give will appear in constitutional law textbooks for the next 50 years.

A precedent for all immigration blocks

The DC Circuit en banc ruling will send ripples far beyond the case of the 137 Venezuelans. Dozens of other immigration cases involve court orders that the Trump administration has challenged, sometimes in similar terms. If the en banc court confirms the legitimacy of the criminal contempt inquiry, it signals to every other immigration administration: court orders are not optional, and violating them can carry criminal consequences for those responsible.

The effect on compliance culture within DHS

Inside DHS, the outcome of this case will shape how agents and officials interpret future court orders. If the contempt inquiry results in meaningful sanctions, it will create a stronger culture of compliance. If it is ultimately smothered by appeals, it will send the opposite message: court orders can be ignored with impunity. These cultural effects are less visible than the judicial decisions themselves, but they are equally important for the future of the rule of law in America.

Institutional culture is what remains when laws alone are no longer enough. If DHS agents internalize the idea that a court order is a suggestion rather than an obligation, no Supreme Court decision can repair that damage from within. That is why the real-world consequences of this case — not just the legal outcome, but the signal it sends — matter as much as the ruling itself.

Allied democracies are watching

In Europe, Latin America, Canada, and other liberal democracies, the Boasberg case is being followed closely. Foreign constitutional lawyers have noted that what is happening in the United States — an administration ignoring court orders, and an appeals court trying to preserve its jurisdiction — is exactly the kind of institutional crisis that democratic constitutions are designed to prevent. NATO allies, already anxious about the direction of American foreign policy, are also watching to see whether American domestic institutions can hold.

America's image and rights diplomacy

The United States has long used its independent judiciary as an argument for its institutional superiority over authoritarian regimes. That rhetoric becomes harder to sustain when deportations to a prison described as a "concentration camp" by some human rights defenders take place in violation of court orders. El Salvador, Venezuela, UN human rights organizations — all have raised concerns that Washington struggles to credibly rebut when its own judges say something serious occurred.

I am not naive about international politics. The United States has done far worse in other contexts — Guantánamo, CIA extraordinary renditions. But until now there was a useful fiction: that the American judicial system could correct those excesses. That fiction is being tested as never before. And the outcome of that test matters for everyone, not just for Americans.

A case at the heart of the great debates of 2026

The Boasberg case unfolds in the context of a systemic challenge to American institutional counterweights in 2026. Alongside this case, the Supreme Court must rule on several related matters concerning the president's power to fire heads of independent agencies. Those cases — Trump v. Cook (Federal Reserve) and Trump v. Slaughter (FTC) — all pose the same central question: how far does executive power reach, and who can stop it?

The accumulation of institutional challenges

What makes the judicial summer of 2026 extraordinary is the simultaneous accumulation of challenges to institutions that many considered unshakable. The Federal Reserve, the CFPB, the asylum system, electoral procedure, independent regulatory agencies — all face parallel challenges. The Boasberg case may be the most spectacular, but it is not isolated: it is part of a coherent pattern of systematic testing of the limits of judicial authority against the executive.

It is not paranoia to see a pattern here. When an administration simultaneously tests the limits of judicial power over immigration, firings, elections, regulatory agencies, and trade policy, that is not ordinary politics. That is a strategy to transform the balance of power. And the courts are the last line of defense against that transformation.

An Obama appointee, respected across party lines

Judge James Boasberg, appointed by President Obama in 2011, has become — against his will — the symbol of judicial resistance to the Trump II administration. He presided over the FISA Court from 2020 to 2023, a secret national security court not known for progressive sympathies. His decision to initiate a criminal contempt inquiry is not the act of an activist — it is the act of a professional jurist who concluded that the administration violated his order and that the violation could not be ignored.

The personal pressures on the judge

Since the start of this case, Judge Boasberg has been the target of public attacks from senior Trump administration officials, including the president himself, who publicly called for his impeachment on social media. Those pressures — unprecedented in their intensity and public character — are themselves a factor in this case. The judge has maintained his position despite them. The DC Circuit en banc decision retroactively validates his perseverance.

A judge who holds his ground against personal attacks from a sitting president — who publicly calls for his removal — is either a stubborn ideologue or someone who deeply believes in his oath. Everything I know about James Boasberg points to the second. And frankly, in this context, that is what the rule of law needs.

Some have already returned to Venezuela

One of the most disturbing dimensions of this case is its partially irreversible character. According to reporting from spring 2026, some of the 137 Venezuelans deported to CECOT were released and repatriated to Venezuela as part of diplomatic exchanges between the Trump administration, El Salvador, and the Venezuelan government. Others remain detained at CECOT. Their fate now depends on complex diplomatic negotiations and decisions by the governments involved — not solely on American courts.

The limits of law when faced with a fait accompli

American courts cannot, in practice, order a foreign government to release detainees. They can order the American administration to "facilitate" a return or to cease its own actions. But if the administration refuses to cooperate and no effective sanction is imposed, the law remains powerless before the accomplished fact. This is the structural limit of any judicial system facing an executive determined to circumvent its orders: courts can rule, but they cannot physically bring people back from El Salvador.

This may be the hardest truth of this case: even if the DC Circuit confirms the contempt inquiry, even if officials are eventually sanctioned, the 137 Venezuelans will remain what they are — people whose lives were radically altered by an unlawful deportation that no one can undo. The law can punish. It can deter. It cannot rewind.

Why criminal contempt and not civil?

Judge Boasberg chose to establish probable cause for criminal contempt rather than civil contempt. This distinction is crucial. Civil contempt is typically used to compel a party to comply with a court order by imposing daily fines until the violation ceases. Criminal contempt, by contrast, is a sanction for a past and deliberate violation — it does not seek future compliance but punishes past conduct. Boasberg's decision to use the criminal framework signals his view that the violation of his order was neither accidental nor ambiguous.

The potential consequences for officials

If the criminal contempt inquiry proceeds and officials are found guilty, possible consequences include substantial fines and, theoretically, imprisonment. In practice, such sanctions against members of a presidential administration are without precedent in modern American history. The en banc court will have to manage a major institutional tension: maintaining judicial authority without provoking a constitutional crisis potentially more serious than the original violation.

I ask myself a question few commentators dare to put plainly: will the en banc court actually go as far as criminal sanctions against members of the Trump administration? Or is this contempt proceeding mainly a pressure tool, an institutional signal? I lean toward the second option. But even as a signal, it is a significant one — perhaps the most significant a court can send in this context.

What June 22, 2026 says about American courts

The DC Circuit en banc ruling of June 22, 2026 is a lesson in institutional resilience. In a climate where the Trump administration has systematically challenged judicial authority, where its spokespersons have attacked judges by name, where the president himself has called for impeachments, the courts have kept functioning. They have issued rulings — sometimes for the administration, sometimes against it. They have maintained their jurisdiction. And in this specific case, they refused to let a flagrant violation of a court order go unanswered.

What September 29 will tell us about the future

The oral arguments of September 29, 2026 may be the most revealing moment of the entire Trump II judicial era. The answer the 11 judges give to the central question — can a government ignore court orders without consequences? — will draw the contours of the American judicial system for decades to come. A strong answer will protect the rule of law. A weak answer will open a breach that other administrations, in other contexts, will not hesitate to exploit.

I close this column with a personal conviction: democracies do not die overnight. They erode through an accumulation of precedents — each tolerated violation making the next one easier. What the DC Circuit does on September 29 is not just deciding one immigration case. It is deciding whether the very idea that government is subject to law is still defensible in the United States. I believe it still is. I hope the 11 judges do too.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.