Defying the Courts

Blocking Court Scrutiny

Trump's Justice Department Twice Asked an Appeals Court to End a Judge's Contempt Inquiry

Select a Section to Explore

Chapter 1 — The Government Asked to End the Inquiry

Chapter 2 — Testimony the Judge Could Not Take

Chapter 3 — The Same Demand in Other Disputes

Chapter 4 — A President's Duty Cannot End Where Scrutiny Begins

1 · The Government Asked to End the Inquiry

1 · The Government Asked to End the Inquiry — select a subtopic

1.1 — Stop the Questions, Not Just the Hearing

1.2 — The First Appeal Left the Inquiry Open

1 · The Government Asked to End the Inquiry

1.1 · The Government Asked to End the Inquiry

Stop the Questions, Not Just the Hearing

The Justice Department asked for more than protection from particular questions. It wanted the judge's inquiry terminated and the case reassigned. A Trump appointee and other department lawyers filed that request for Trump in his official capacity.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[1]Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, 38 pp., signed for the Civil Division by Tiberius Davis, with Brett A. Shumate and Yaakov M. Roth

[2]Opinion, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, 147 F.4th 1044 (Pillard, Katsas and Rao, JJ.)

[3]Order compelling live testimony, ECF 200, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, C.J.)

[4]Order (administrative stay), D.C. Cir. No. 25-5452, per curiam (Rao, Walker and Childs, JJ.)

[5]Order granting rehearing en banc, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452 (D.C. Cir.), per curiam (Srinivasan, C.J., and ten circuit judges)

[6]DOJ, President Donald J. Trump Intends to Nominate Individuals to Key Posts at the Department of Justice, February 19, 2025

[7]U.S. Department of Justice, "Civil Division Leadership"

[8]Order denying rehearing en banc, with three attached statements, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, per curiam (Srinivasan, C.J., and ten circuit judges)

1.2 · The Government Asked to End the Inquiry

The First Appeal Left the Inquiry Open

The Justice Department's first petition persuaded the appeals court to cancel the judge's probable-cause order in the El Salvador transfer case. The court did not grant its request to terminate the contempt proceedings. The full court declined to rehear that decision.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Opinion, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, 147 F.4th 1044 (Pillard, Katsas and Rao, JJ.)

[8]Order denying rehearing en banc, with three attached statements, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, per curiam (Srinivasan, C.J., and ten circuit judges)

[9]Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, a Writ of Mandamus, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124

[10]Trump v. J. G. G., No. 24A931, Supreme Court of the United States, per curiam opinion

[11]Memorandum Opinion, ECF 81, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Boasberg, C.J.)

[12]Official district-court docket sheet through April 17, 2025, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), as filed in the court of appeals, 80 pp.

2 · Testimony the Judge Could Not Take

2 · Testimony the Judge Could Not Take — select a subtopic

2.1 — A Name Was Not an Explanation

2.2 — The Defense, the Reversal, and the Delay

2 · Testimony the Judge Could Not Take

2.1 · Testimony the Judge Could Not Take

A Name Was Not an Explanation

The government identified Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as the decisionmaker. Her declaration left the judge unable to find probable cause. He scheduled testimony from two lawyers so he could understand the basis for the transfer decision.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Opinion, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, 147 F.4th 1044 (Pillard, Katsas and Rao, JJ.)

[3]Order compelling live testimony, ECF 200, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, C.J.)

[4]Order (administrative stay), D.C. Cir. No. 25-5452, per curiam (Rao, Walker and Childs, JJ.)

[13]Order, ECF 196, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, C.J.)

[14]Petitioners' en banc brief, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452, July 22, 2026

2.2 · Testimony the Judge Could Not Take

The Defense, the Reversal, and the Delay

The government argued that the inquiry intruded on executive power and threatened privileged legal advice. A panel granted its request to end the proceedings, but the full court vacated that order. The testimony remained stayed while the full court considered the dispute.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[3]Order compelling live testimony, ECF 200, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, C.J.)

[5]Order granting rehearing en banc, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452 (D.C. Cir.), per curiam (Srinivasan, C.J., and ten circuit judges)

[14]Petitioners' en banc brief, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452, July 22, 2026

[15]Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (Supreme Court of the United States, bound volume 542)

[16]Young v. United States ex rel. Vuitton et Fils S.A., 481 U.S. 787 (1987) (Library of Congress, United States Reports)

[17]Order granting the petition for a writ of mandamus, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5452, per curiam (Rao, Walker and Childs, JJ.)

[18]Opinion, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5452, 122 pp. (Rao, J., for the court; Walker, J., concurring; Childs, J., dissenting)

[19]D.C. Circuit oral-argument recordings, September 2026

[20]D.C. Circuit docket, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452, mirrored by CourtListener

[21]Law360, case coverage index, In re Donald J. Trump, September 29, 2026 argument summary

3 · The Same Demand in Other Disputes

3 · The Same Demand in Other Disputes — select a subtopic

3.1 — Records, Discovery and a Troop Call-Up

3 · The Same Demand in Other Disputes

3.1 · The Same Demand in Other Disputes

Records, Discovery and a Troop Call-Up

White House Counsel used a Justice Department opinion to narrow records preservation. At the preliminary stage, Judge John Bates concluded that the President's disregard of the law exceeded his constitutional authority and violated federal law, and he required covered White House offices and staff to comply. In a separate deportation case, a judge found bad-faith obstruction of discovery; the docket shows no ruling imposing sanctions. The federal Ninth Circuit rejected complete immunity from review but found that Trump likely lawfully federalized the California Guard; it did not decide whether particular uses of those troops were lawful.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[22]Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay, Dkt. 19, American Historical Association v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01169 (D.D.C.), 55 pp., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

[23]Order, ECF 100, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security, et al., Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Xinis, J.)

[24]Reply in Support of Application to Stay the Order Issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and Request for an Immediate Administrative Stay, Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, Supreme Court of the United States, D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, Counsel of Record

[25]Order, Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

[26]U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, memorandum opinion, "Constitutionality of the Presidential Records Act," 50 Op. O.L.C. __, addressed to the Counsel to the President, signed T. Elliot Gaiser, Assistant Attorney General, 52 pp.

[27]Memorandum from the Office of the Counsel to the President (David Alan Warrington) to Executive Office of the President staff, "Records Retention Policy After Office of Legal Counsel Finding that the Presidential Records Act is Unconstitutional," filed as government Exhibit A, Dkt. 19-2, American Historical Association v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01169 (D.D.C.)

[28]Memorandum Opinion, ECF 24, American Historical Association v. Trump, No. 1:26-cv-01169 (D.D.C.), May 20, 2026 (Bates, J.)

[29]Order, ECF 23, American Historical Association v. Trump, May 20, 2026

[30]Memorandum Opinion, ECF 36, American Historical Association v. Trump, June 30, 2026

[31]D.C. Circuit oral-argument calendar, dated October 10, 2026

[32]Plaintiffs' Motion for Discovery Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, ECF 195 (redacted version; the sealed original is ECF 196), Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX (D. Md.)

[33]Docket, Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX, page 3, mirrored by CourtListener

[34]Trump v. Illinois, No. 25A443, Supreme Court order and opinions, December 23, 2025

[35]Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law, ECF 146, State of Oregon v. Trump, No. 3:25-cv-01756-IM, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon (Immergut, J.), 106 pp.

[36]Federal Judicial Center, Biographical Directory of Article III Federal Judges — entry for Karin Johanna Immergut

[37]Oregon Department of Justice, federal-litigation tracker for Oregon v. Trump

4 · A President's Duty Cannot End Where Scrutiny Begins

4 · A President's Duty Cannot End Where Scrutiny Begins — select a subtopic

4.1 — The Question Congress Still Has to Answer

4 · A President's Duty Cannot End Where Scrutiny Begins

4.1 · A President's Duty Cannot End Where Scrutiny Begins

The Question Congress Still Has to Answer

Congress must judge whether Trump's government used public power to protect itself from accountability. In Nixon's case, a House committee approved an impeachment charge for refusing congressional subpoenas, while opponents insisted on a fair hearing of his defense. Those opponents also recognized duly adjudicated judicial contempt as an impeachable offense; the El Salvador inquiry has produced no such judgment. The charge here concerns the government's effort to stop scrutiny.

Read the full chapter — all the detail, fully footnoted →

Sources

[2]Opinion, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124, 147 F.4th 1044 (Pillard, Katsas and Rao, JJ.)

[3]Order compelling live testimony, ECF 200, J.G.G. v. Trump, No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.) (Boasberg, C.J.)

[5]Order granting rehearing en banc, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452 (D.C. Cir.), per curiam (Srinivasan, C.J., and ten circuit judges)

[9]Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal or, in the Alternative, a Writ of Mandamus, D.C. Cir. No. 25-5124

[20]D.C. Circuit docket, In re Donald J. Trump, No. 25-5452, mirrored by CourtListener

[25]Order, Newsom v. Trump, No. 25-3727, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

[29]Order, ECF 23, American Historical Association v. Trump, May 20, 2026

[38]U.S. Const. art. II, §§ 3 and 4 (National Archives transcription of the Constitution)

[39]Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, Volume 3, Chapter 14 (Government Publishing Office)

[40]Minority Views, Separate Views and individual views on Article III, H. Rept. 93-1305, as printed in the bound Congressional Record, 120 Cong. Rec. 29353-56 (Aug. 20, 1974) (Government Publishing Office)