Contempt by Design: How Judicial Activism Wears the Mask of Procedure

A judge caricatured as a robed activist rides a toy plane, symbolizing perceived judicial overreach.

In an era when partisan politics increasingly disguises itself in the garb of legal neutrality, the American judiciary is no longer simply the interpreter of law—it is becoming one of its primary weapons. Nowhere is this more evident than in the recent conduct of Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, whose attempt to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt over deportation flights to El Salvador reveals the disturbing fusion of lawfare and judicial overreach.

🎭 The Theater of Contempt

The case, J.G.G. v. Trump (Civil Action No. 25-766 (JEB)), stems from the Department of Homeland Security carrying out deportation flights under lawful executive authority—even as Judge Boasberg issued a late-breaking injunction demanding they be halted. When reports emerged that a deportee had already left U.S. airspace, Boasberg responded not by ordering the individual returned from El Salvador, but by threatening contempt proceedings against government officials.

This was not a legal remedy. It was a performance.

Boasberg, operating under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, claimed the Trump team had violated his order and must be held accountable. But crucially, he did not demand the return of the deported migrant. Why? Because he knew that doing so would overstep the limits of his authority and potentially reveal that his power ended the moment U.S. agents crossed international borders.

🧠 The Legal Illusion

Boasberg’s claim hinges on the concept of “continuing jurisdiction” over U.S. agents and assets. In theory, this allows courts to enforce compliance with their orders—even outside U.S. soil—so long as the agents involved are American personnel.

But this interpretation unravels under scrutiny:

If he truly had jurisdiction over the situation, he would have ordered the return of the deportee.
If he truly believed the law had been violated, he would have sought an international remedy or enforcement mechanism.
But instead, he targeted U.S. officials for symbolic punishment, hoping to send a message while avoiding real legal consequence or diplomatic confrontation.

In truth, the migrant was never the target. The Trump administration was.

⚔️ Procedural Lawfare: A Weapon, Not a Check

This episode is a textbook example of judicial activism disguised as procedural enforcement—where process becomes a weapon, and "neutrality" becomes narrative cover for partisan objectives.

What Boasberg pursued wasn’t justice—it was lawfare:

Not to protect rights, but to undermine executive discretion.
Not to restore due process, but to impose judicial supremacy over immigration enforcement.
Not to uphold the Constitution, but to slow-walk and sabotage the executive agenda through legal intimidation.

Worse, the timing and scope of the contempt threat suggests a political calculation: The Trump administration is back in power, and the judiciary—still largely staffed by appointees of the old order—seeks to restrain it not through legislation, but through litigation.

🧱 What Can Be Done?

Restoring balance to the separation of powers doesn’t require revolution—it requires recalibration. Here are three constitutional steps that can be taken to blunt the edge of procedural lawfare:

Appoint Judges Committed to OriginalismTrump’s best legacy may be his judicial appointments. Continued emphasis on textualist and originalist judges curbs the influence of political interpretation from the bench.
Legislative Jurisdiction ReformCongress has the authority to strip lower courts of jurisdiction over certain immigration-related executive functions. The “No Rogue Rulings Act” and similar proposals should be revived and passed.
Preemptive Pardons & DOJ PushbackWhen judges weaponize contempt, the Executive can lawfully respond by issuing preemptive pardons and directing the DOJ to decline politically motivated prosecutions.

🚨 Conclusion: The Danger of Pretend Neutrality

What makes judicial activism so dangerous is not its bluntness—but its subtlety. Judge Boasberg’s contempt gambit is cloaked in the language of civics: rule of law, process, oversight. But its intent is unmistakable—to shift the balance of power toward an unelected judiciary that increasingly acts as a political force rather than a constitutional check.

When law becomes performance and contempt becomes policy, we are no longer operating within the bounds of coequal governance. We are witnessing a soft coup—not with tanks, but with gavels.

Florida Conservative