WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge must end his “intrusive” contempt investigation of the Trump administration for failing to comply with an order over flights carrying Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador last year, a divided appeals court panel ruled Tuesday.

Chief Judge James Boasberg abused his discretion in forging ahead with criminal contempt proceedings stemming from the March 2025 deportation flights, according to the majority opinion by a three-judge panel from U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The ruling is the latest twist in a yearlong legal saga that has became a flashpoint in President Donald Trump's mass deportation campaign. The White House has portrayed Boasberg as a biased judge who overstepped his authority.

Trump’s administration has a “clear and indisputable” right to the termination of the contempt proceedings, Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“The legal error at the heart of these criminal contempt proceedings demonstrates why further investigation by the district court is an abuse of discretion,” Rao wrote. “Criminal contempt is available only for the violation of an order that is clear and specific. (Boasberg's March 2025 order) did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.”

Rao was nominated by Trump, a Republican. Boasberg, chief judge of the district court in Washington, D.C., was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

On March 15, 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order barring the administration from transferring a group of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an 18th century law. After the order was entered, two planeloads of migrants protected by the order departed from the U.S. on their way to El Salvador, where they were locked up in one of the world's most violent prisons. The administration said then- Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the transfer decision.

Boasberg has said the Trump administration may have acted in bad faith by trying to rush Venezuelan migrants out of the country in defiance of his order. He said he gave the administration “ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions” but concluded that “none of their responses has been satisfactory.”

Last year, the Justice Department filed a misconduct complaint accusing Boasberg of making improper public comments about Trump and his administration. Trump has called for impeaching Boasberg. In a rare rebuke, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rejected calls for Boasberg's impeachment.

The case is assigned to Rao and Circuit Judges Justin Walker and J. Michelle Childs. Walker, also a Trump nominee, wrote a separate opinion concurring with Rao's. Childs, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, dissented from the majority.

Childs said the court's majority has trampled on Boasberg's authority “in a way that will affect not only these contempt proceedings but will also echo in future proceedings against all litigants.”

“Now, any litigant can argue, based on their preferred interpretation of a court’s order, that they did not commit contempt before contempt findings are even made,” Childs wrote in her 80-page dissent.

Lawyers for the deported migrants can ask the full circuit court or the U.S. Supreme Court to review the panel's decision.

Plaintiffs' attorney Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union said the majority opinion is “a blow to the rule of law.”

"Our system is built on the executive branch, including the president, respecting court orders. In this case there is no longer any question that the Trump administration willfully violated the court’s order,” Gelernt said in a statement.