The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 Friday that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg cannot move forward with possible contempt proceedings against the Trump administration.

The case involves the administration’s alleged violation of an emergency court order blocking the administration from using a 1798 law to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador — the latest in an evolving, high-stakes court clash that has played out for months in various courts. 

Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, two Trump appointees on the majority-Democrat bench, sided with the Trump administration Friday in blocking Boasberg’s contempt motion from moving forward. 

Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, dissented. 

The 2-1 ruling is all but certain to be appealed to the full court to be heard en banc, where the Democrat-majority bench is seen as more favorable to the plaintiffs, or directly to the Supreme Court for review.

‘The district court here was placed in an enormously difficult position,’ Katsas said Friday, writing for the majority.

‘Faced with an emergency situation, it had to digest and rule upon novel and complex issues within a matter of hours. In that context, the court quite understandably issued a written order that contained some ambiguity.’

Katsas noted that the appellate court ruling does not center on the lawfulness of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act removals in March, when administration officials invoked the 1798 immigration law to send more than 250 Venezuelan nationals to CECOT, the maximum-security prison in El Salvador.

‘Nor may we decide whether the government’s aggressive implementation of the presidential proclamation warrants praise or criticism as a policy matter,’ he added. ‘Perhaps it should warrant more careful judicial scrutiny in the future. Perhaps it already has.’

‘Regardless, the government’s initial implementation of the proclamation clearly and indisputably was not criminal.’

The ruling comes months after Boasberg originally found grounds to move on potential contempt proceedings in the case.

It comes as Boasberg has also ordered ongoing status updates on the location and custodial status of the 252 CECOT class migrants, after they were deported last month from El Salvador to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange between the U.S. and Venezuela.

It is unclear how many of those migrants had pending asylum applications in the U.S. or had been granted a ‘withholding of removal’ order blocking their return to their country of origin. 

The long-awaited ruling comes months after Boasberg ruled that the court had found probable cause to move on criminal contempt proceedings after he issued a late-night temporary restraining order on March 15 blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport certain migrants to El Salvador.

Boasberg had also ordered all migrants to be ‘immediately returned’ to U.S. soil, which did not happen. 

Despite the order, hundreds of migrants were deported to the Salvadorian prison, CECOT, in March, where they remained until late last month, when they were sent from the prison in El Salvador to Venezuela, as part of the prisoner exchange. 

Boasbeg ruled in April that there was ‘probable cause’ to move on criminal contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for failing to return the planes to U.S. soil and said the court had determined that the Trump administration demonstrated a ‘willful disregard’ for his order.

The appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request for an emergency stay of the ruling months earlier, prompting questions as to why they did not move more quickly on the motion.

Still, the decision is almost certain to be appealed either to the full circuit court to be heard en banc, or directly to the Supreme Court for review. 

The Trump administration for months has sparred with judges who have blocked the president’s executive orders from taking force.

Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump’s biggest public foes. Last month, the court attempted to have him removed from overseeing the case and have it reassigned to another case — a long-shot effort that legal experts and former judges suggested is unlikely to go far.

This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates.

Republican senators offered a range of responses when pressed on how the Trump administration has been handling the Epstein files controversy, with some calling it a distraction and others arguing the American people are ‘entitled’ to answers.

Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the ‘first phase’ of declassified files related to Jeffrey Epstein Feb. 27, noting the move was following through on President Donald Trump’s commitment to ‘lifting the veil’ on Epstein and his co-conspirator’s actions. Bondi also said the same month she was in possession of an Epstein ‘client list.’

However, the February declassification contained mostly information and files that had already been publicly available, and the Justice Department subsequently indicated that no ‘client list’ exists. Since then, a series of events, including a clash between FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino and Attorney General Bondi, have led to mounting pressure on the Trump administration to release more files. 

‘This is factual. Epstein trafficked a lot of young women, some of whom were minors. The American people are entitled to know who — if anyone — he trafficked these young women to, besides himself, and why they weren’t prosecuted,’ John Kennedy, R-La., said. 

‘Now that’s a very simple question that’s at the bottom of all of this. The Department of Justice is going to have to answer that question to the satisfaction of the American people.’

Kennedy’s call for transparency comes after the president described the Epstein situation as a ‘hoax’ while blasting Democrats and other ‘weaklings’ who continue to buy into it. 

‘Their new SCAM is what we will forever call the Jeffrey Epstein Hoax, and my PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bull—-,’ hook, line, and sinker,’ Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform last month amid mounting reports of internal division within the administration over its handling of the Epstein case 

When asked about how the Trump administration was handling the Epstein furor, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., said he thought the situation was being used by Democrats to create a ‘distraction’ from the ongoing investigations into former President Biden and others, like the probe related to Biden’s use of an autopen tool to sign important documents and the investigation into whether Obama-era officials manufactured evidence to accuse Trump of Russian collusion.

‘Look what’s being investigated right now through the Biden administration. … So, what are they going to talk about now?’ Mullin asked. ‘This is nothing but a distraction from the actual facts that is coming out about the Biden administration. Of course, the Democrats say, ‘Well, we’re just about transparency.’ Well, where was the transparency the last four years?’

Democrats have suggested Trump could be implicated in the files, but Mullin said that if such a circumstance were true, the information would have been leaked by the Biden administration. 

Mullin’s counterpart in the Senate, Republican Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford took more of a middle ground in his response about how the administration has been handling the Epstein files.

‘The challenge is there are people that are victims that are in it, and there are folks that are not criminals that are in it as well,’ Lankford said. ‘And the challenge the Department of Justice has is you’ve got a girl that was 14, 16 years old and was abused. Well, now she’s, let’s say 26 or 30, married and has children. 

‘Maybe her family knows about this, maybe they don’t. I don’t know the situation, but we gotta figure out a way to be able to protect those folks that are genuine victims on all this as well as getting out as much information as you possibly can.’

For Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the debate about the Epstein files was not something she was interested in talking about when approached by Fox News Digital.

‘I’m going,’ Collins responded when pressed on the matter outside the Capitol complex.

In a sweeping move aimed at rolling back pandemic-era mandates, the Trump administration on Friday directed all federal agencies to erase any records related to employees’ COVID-19 vaccination status, prior mandate noncompliance or exemption requests.

The guidance, issued by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was a response to recent litigation and is part of a broader push to reverse what officials have described as ‘harmful pandemic-era policies’ imposed under the Biden administration. 

‘Things got out of hand during the pandemic, and federal workers were fired, punished or sidelined for simply making a personal medical decision,’ OPM Director Scott Kupor said in a statement.That should never have happened. Thanks to President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, we’re making sure the excesses of that era do not have lingering effects on federal workers.’

Former President Joe Biden signed Executive Order 14043 in September 2021, directing federal agencies to require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of federal employment. 

After the controversial demand, numerous lawsuits were filed by federal employees, unions and states alleging the mandate violated constitutional rights and federal labor laws.

A federal appeals court blocked enforcement of the order in 2022m and Biden repealed the mandate in May 2023, prompting OPM officials to issue a memorandum to human resources directors stating that ‘agencies should review their job postings … to ensure that none list compliance with the now revoked Executive Order 14043 as a qualification requirement.’ 

The memo also reminded agencies that the executive order could no longer be enforced.

In a memo to heads and acting heads of departments and agencies Friday, Kupor announced that, effective immediately, agencies are barred from using a person’s vaccine history or exemption requests in any employment-related decision, including hiring, promotion, discipline or termination. 

Unless an employee affirmatively opts out within 90 days, all vaccine-related information must be permanently removed from both physical and electronic personnel files.

Agencies must certify compliance with the memo by Sept. 8, according to the memo.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.

On July 15, President Trump nominated my friend and former Gorsuch clerk colleague Eric Tung to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If confirmed, Tung will succeed Judge Sandra Ikuta, who recently assumed senior status after a distinguished tenure. Judge Ikuta leaves behind a strong legacy, one Tung is more than equipped to uphold and extend.

Tung’s credentials are exceptional. He earned a philosophy degree from Yale in 2006 and graduated with high honors from the University of Chicago Law School in 2010. While there, he served as managing editor of the University of Chicago Law Review, one of the most rigorous legal journals in the country.

Following law school, Tung clerked for two of the most respected jurists in America: then-Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Tenth Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. These clerkships are offered only to the legal elite. Even among that group, Tung stood out.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Tung’s brilliance, ethics, and temperament have earned him bipartisan respect. A letter supporting his nomination was signed by fellow Supreme Court clerks from across the ideological spectrum, from Justice Ginsburg’s to Justice Thomas’. That level of cross-aisle support is rare and speaks volumes.

One signer, Danielle Sassoon, a former federal prosecutor who has publicly disagreed with the Trump administration, went out of her way to endorse Tung. Her support underscores how widely admired he is for his intellect and integrity, regardless of politics.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist.

Tung’s experience goes far beyond the top of the legal profession. He served in the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy, where he helped vet judicial nominees, giving him a firsthand look at what makes a good judge. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, he prosecuted serious criminal cases, gaining invaluable courtroom experience. Now a partner at Jones Day, Tung handles complex appellate and trial work at a national level.

Although President Trump made inroads during his first term in balancing out the nation’s most liberal federal appeals court outside of Washington, D.C., of the 29 active judges, 16 were Democratic nominees. Tung replacing Ikuta won’t change that balance, but it will ensure the vacated seat remains in the hands of a strong constitutionalist.

Despite this impeccable record, Tung’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing was marred by partisan theatrics. Several Democrat senators ignored his qualifications and fixated instead on social media posts I had written. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., quoted part of an old post of mine and demanded Tung ‘condemn’ it. Tung, noting the canons of judicial ethics, rightly declined to weigh in, clarifying that my opinions are not necessarily his.

Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., followed suit, hitting Tung over a post where I had labeled certain Democrats ‘evil Marxists.’ Booker then attempted to cast himself as a model of bipartisan civility, citing his friendship with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., conveniently omitting that he once claimed supporters of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court were ‘complicit in evil.’ Again, Tung refused to be drawn into political grandstanding, displaying the restraint and poise we should expect from a federal judge.

This guilt-by-association line of attack is dishonest and irrelevant. Tung’s record speaks for itself. Rather than engage with his legal merits, some senators tried to hijack yet another Judiciary Committee  hearing to score cheap political points. Tung never took the bait.

His nomination also highlights the double standard in how judicial diversity is treated. As the son of Chinese immigrants and a fluent Mandarin speaker, one would think Democrats would celebrate Tung at least for their sacred metrics of representation and diversity on the federal bench. But because he’s a conservative, his background is downplayed, or even used against him. The selective celebration of diversity and identity politics in judicial nominations is glaring.

Ultimately, what really matters is Tung’s record, and it’s unimpeachable. He is a brilliant legal mind, a fair-minded jurist, and a committed constitutionalist. His combination of courtroom experience, academic rigor, and ethical clarity makes him an ideal appellate judge.

The Senate should rise above political posturing and confirm Eric Tung without delay. His confirmation will not only fortify the Ninth Circuit, but strengthen the rule of law nationwide. President Trump’s reshaping of the federal judiciary with principled, constitutionalist judges will take a significant step forward with Tung’s appointment.

Eric Tung is exactly the kind of judge Americans want: sharp, steady, and scrupulously fair. The Senate must act upon its return and confirm him in September.

Mike Davis is the founder and president of the Article III Project.