1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge finds probable cause to hold US in…

Constitutional Law

Judge finds probable cause to hold US in contempt; is Trump administration ‘at the cusp of outright defiance’?

By Debra Cassens Weiss

April 16, 2025, 3:53 pm CDT

A federal judge who banned the Trump administration from removing Venezuelan immigrants from the United States ruled Wednesday that there is probable cause to find the government in criminal contempt for willfully disobeying his directive.

The federal government transferred the deportees to a prison in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, the judge said, and officials’ boasts implied that it was done “deliberately and gleefully.”

Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia said he would give the Trump administration a chance to purge itself of contempt, and if the government doesn’t act, he would identify the people responsible for noncompliance. The final step would be a contempt prosecution, possibly by an appointed prosecutor.

CNN, the Washington Post, Law360 and the New York Times are among the publications with coverage of Boasberg’s April 16 order.

Boasberg ruled a day after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the administration to provide answers about why it apparently failed to “facilitate” the release of an immigrant mistakenly sent to the El Salvadoran prison, as ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court on April 10.

The government’s clashes with Boasberg and Xinis have led to the government’s arrival “at the cusp of outright defiance,” the New York Times reports in a separate article. Other examples of the administration’s defiant stance include its freezing of funds that have been ordered released and its refusal to allow the Associated Press to participate in the press pool, despite a federal judge’s decision requiring access.

Elora Mukherjee, a professor at Columbia Law School, told Courthouse News Service that the executive branch “is intent on pushing the bounds of its authority as far as possible and now beyond the breaking point of our constitutional democracy.”

In the case before Xinis, the government has argued that facilitating the return of the immigrant, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, means only that it must “remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.”

The government argument “does not pass the laugh test,” Michael Dorf, a professor at Cornell Law SchooL, told the New York Times.

The New York Times concludes that defiance may not be in the form of an outright refusal to follow a judge’s order.

“It may be an appearance by a hapless lawyer who has or claims to have no information. Or it may be a legal argument so outlandish as to amount to insolence,” the article says.

Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, even though the Supreme Court ruled April 7 that the case had been filed in the wrong venue. The Supreme Court said the immigrants could only challenge their deportation under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 through a habeas action, which must be brought in the district in which they are confined.

Boasberg said the Supreme Court decision, which lifted his temporary restraining order preventing the deportations, “does not excuse the government’s violation.”

Every judicial order must be obeyed until it is reversed, he said.

“If a party chooses to disobey the order—rather than wait for it to be reversed through the judicial process—such disobedience is punishable as contempt, notwithstanding any later-revealed deficiencies in the order,” Boasberg wrote.

Boasberg said the government could purge itself of contempt by giving the deportees sent to El Salvador a chance to challenge their removal in a habeas proceeding by asserting custody over them. The government would not have to release people or bring them back to assert custody.

If the government does not purge itself of contempt, Boasberg will require declarations and possibly testimony, he said. The next step, if needed, would be to seek a contempt prosecution by the Department of Justice, and, if that is declined, to appoint another prosecutor.

The Trump administration planned to seek “immediate appellate relief” from Boasberg’s ruling, according to the New York Times.

The case is J.G.G. v. Trump.

Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.

The federal judge who has been going back and forth with the Trump administration over its mass deportations of Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789 (AEA) — and whether administration officials blatantly ignored orders he gave to shut them down — took a Justice Department lawyer to task on Thursday with an hourlong onslaught of questions and comments about the case, including warnings about holding people in contempt.

At one point during the hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg flat-out called the Justice Department’s actions “pretty sketchy” as it continued to try and say certain information about the Trump deportation flights couldn’t be shared with Boasberg, even in a classified facility and under seal.

“If I don’t agree, if I don’t find your legal arguments convincing and I believe there’s probable cause to find contempt, what I’m asking is how should I determine who the contemnor or contemnors are?” Boasberg asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Immigration Litigation Drew Ensign, who was arguing on behalf of the DOJ.

MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell is refusing to pay a court-ordered debt, according to a Wednesday filing in Washington, D.C., federal court.

Now, voting software company Smartmatic wants the bedding magnate held in civil contempt “for violating the clear and unambiguous terms” of a January court order that put Lindell on the hook for $56,369 over frivolous claims he made in a failed lawsuit.

In the case, the underlying lawsuit was filed by Dominion Voting Systems, accusing Lindell and MyPillow of slander over false claims about the 2020 election. Lindell later sued both voting companies for myriad claims and lost. Smartmatic, in turn, moved for sanctions.

While the court sided with Smartmatic on that question in 2022, it was not until the company prodded late last year for their award that the dollar amount was finally decided upon. On Jan. 13, U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, substantially pared down Lindell’s liability and ordered him to pay.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from…

Tort Law

Giuliani contempt decision blocks him from doing this, putting his Florida condo at risk

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 7, 2025, 10:34 am CST

Disbarred lawyer Rudy Giuliani is “in dire jeopardy” of having to turn over his Palm Beach, Florida, condo to two Georgia election workers who sued him for defamation after a federal judge held the former New York City mayor in civil contempt Monday, according to a report by Politico.

U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York barred Giuliani from presenting evidence on the primary defense that would allow him to keep the Florida condo after he failed to provide information that would help determine whether the property was his primary residence, Politico reports.

Liman’s decision allows him to draw negative inferences about Giuliani’s Florida residency, report the New York Times and Law.com.

The trial on whether 80-year-old Giuliani is entitled to keep the condo is scheduled for next week before Liman. At issue is whether the condo is Giuliani’s homestead entitled to protection under the Florida Constitution.

Publications with coverage, in addition to Politico, Law.com and the New York Times, include Reuters, the Associated Press and CNN.

The election workers, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss, won a $148 million defamation verdict against Giuliani after he accused them of election fraud in the 2020 election. Giuliani was formerly a lawyer for President-elect Donald Trump.

Giuliani had claimed in now-dismissed bankruptcy proceedings that his New York co-op apartment was his homestead residence, which protected a portion of it in bankruptcy proceedings, according to a Dec. 27 decision denying Giuliani’s motion for summary judgment. After the bankruptcy dismissal, Giuliani declared Florida to be his domicile.

The contempt finding was for Giuliani’s failure to provide evidence about his primary residence, according to the New York Times.

Giuliani did not turn over full names of his doctors or provide a full list of other professional service providers, leading the judge to conclude that none was in Florida before Giuliani changed his residence there in January 2024, the AP explains. Liman also barred Giuliani from presenting testimony or electronic communications to establish the Florida homestead.

Giuliani could also be held in contempt separately for failing to turn over property, the New York Times says.

Giuliani has already turned over designer watches and a 1980 Mercedes-Benz convertible. He is also moving to turn over his Manhattan apartment in New York City. He did not provide a framed jersey of baseball player Joe DiMaggio, however, which he said he can’t find. Nor did he turn over his grandfather’s pocket watch, which he pulled out during the hearing Monday, saying he fears that it will be lost.

The liability verdict was delivered in a trial held only to determine damages after a different federal judge entered a default liability judgment against Giuliani for failing to provide meaningful discovery. That federal judge, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the District of Columbia, has scheduled a separate contempt hearing against Giuliani for Friday for alleged violation of an agreement not to make new defamatory claims about the election workers, Politico reports.

Giuliani said in his podcast Monday evening the New York court’s request for information was “enormously burdensome,” and he had already released “hundreds and hundreds of pages of discovery.” according to reporting by CNN. He said he didn’t have to testify because the judge “had already made up his mind.”

Giuliani’s spokesperson, Ted Goodman, released a statement. Freeman and Moss “might be happy to fight to take away Mayor Giuliani’s most cherished personal belongings, including his signed baseball jersey of his childhood hero and his grandfather’s pocket watch, but they can never take away his extraordinary record of public service,” Goodman said.

Rudy Giuliani appeared in a federal courtroom in Manhattan on Friday for a hearing on whether he should be held in contempt after the onetime personal attorney for President-elect Donald Trump allegedly flouted multiple court orders in connection with the two Georgia election workers he defamed trying to collect the $148 million judgment awarded in their favor.

Last month, U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman, a Trump appointee, ordered Giuliani to appear in person for the Jan. 3 hearing on the contempt issue following numerous requests from the plaintiffs regarding his “consistent pattern of willful defiance” involving court orders to turn over of his personal property and provide information to plaintiffs for discovery.

Liman on Thursday rejected Giuliani’s last-minute request to appear virtually for the contempt hearing after the former New York City mayor said he was “having medical issues with his left knee” as well as “breathing problems due to lung issues” that were the result of him “being at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001.”

The hearing, which began at 10 a.m., went through the day and will be continued at the same time on Monday. However, Liman will allow Giuliani to appear virtually for the proceedings as he will not be questioned by plaintiff’s counsel again.

A federal judge in Manhattan on Friday ordered Rudy Giuliani to attend a contempt hearing after two Georgia election workers accused him of violating court orders and repeatedly flouting discovery obligations.

On Thursday, Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss asked U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman to hold the former New York City mayor in contempt and impose sanctions.

In a motion and accompanying 22-page memorandum of law, the pair explained how they have lost their patience as they seek to enforce the multimillion-dollar judgment in their defamation case against him.

With due haste – and before Giuliani was able to file a response to the contempt and sanctions request – Liman ordered the parties to attend a civil contempt hearing slated for the morning of Jan. 3, 2025.

The first election official convicted of a felony over 2020 election conspiracy theories promulgated by followers of Donald Trump is appealing an earlier contempt of court ruling in a related case.

Tina Peters, 68, is the former county clerk of Mesa County, Colorado. In August, she was convicted on seven counts of engaging in a security breach — related to unauthorized access to voting machines. In October, after a marathon hearing in which the defendant repeatedly expressed defiance and stuck to her theories, she was sentenced to nine years in state prison for those felony offenses.

While sitting in the gallery during a February 2022 hearing for one of her alleged co-conspirators, Peters allegedly used an iPad to record some of the proceedings. In May 2023, she was found guilty of contempt for that decidedly lesser charge — and fined $1,500.

In June, Peters appealed her contempt citation, with the state filing its reply brief the following month. This week, Peters’ attorney John Case appeared before a three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals.

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ordered Rudy Giuliani to appear for an in-person hearing next month after the two Georgia election workers he defamed requested he be held in contempt of court for allegedly repeating the lies about the 2020 election that resulted in a $148 million judgment against the former New York City mayor.

The motion for civil contempt was filed Wednesday morning after Giuliani made several pleas last week for public donations, saying he couldn’t afford to feed himself as a result of debt he owes to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Wandrea ArShaye “Shaye” Moss.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’…

Judiciary

Judge accused of ‘casual and illegal use’ of contempt power; crime victim cuffed

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 23, 2024, 10:45 am CDT

A Florida judge has been accused of conducting “improper or legally deficient” contempt proceedings in which she ordered the handcuffing of a crime victim and the jailing of the mother of traumatized, truant children.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission accused Judge Anne Marie Gennusa of Putnam County, Florida, of violating ethics rules in an Oct. 21 complaint.

Gennusa has practiced law for 29 years, yet she blamed deficient proceedings on the fact that she hadn’t yet attended the Florida Judicial College, the ethics complaint said. In one case, she also said she had been vomiting with a fever prior to ordering the handcuffing of a misdemeanor battery defendant and the alleged victim.

The ethics complaint accuses Gennusa of “casual and illegal use” of her contempt power in these three cases.

  • State v. Boone: In January, Gennusa held a misdemeanor battery defendant and an alleged victim in contempt after they twice argued in open court. The victim was handcuffed in court and held in custody for nearly three hours.

After the defendant and the victim argued the first time, Gennusa told the defendant that he was acting disrespectful.

“This is not The Jerry Springer Show,” she said, and, he can’t “lash out” and say whatever he wants. The defendant protested, “I’m not lashing. This ain’t no lashing out. Lash out I’m going to get loud on you.” Gennusa replied, “You gonna get loud on me?” and ordered the defendant taken into custody until after lunch.

When the prosecutor asked whether the victim should remain, Gennusa replied that she wouldn’t accept a plea because it appeared that the victim would not accept a plea. At that point, the victim spoke up from the gallery, saying, “I never said I did not want the plea.” The defendant and the victim began arguing again.

Gennusa then admonished the victim and asked whether the prosecutor wanted to speak with the victim. During the conversation with the prosecutor, the victim said she was getting irritated, she didn’t like being spoken to like a child, and she didn’t understand what was going on. Gennusa overheard the conversation and ordered the victim taken into custody until after lunch.

  • In re: M.R.A., J.F.A.: In November 2023, Gennusa held the mother of three truant children in contempt and sentenced her to 10 days in jail. Gennusa had claimed that the mother’s conduct was “belligerent” and “deplorable,” but the hearing recording did not support the assessment, the ethics complaint said.

The mother had violated a court order for her children to attend a specific school program. The mother said the children weren’t in school because their maternal grandfather had recently been murdered by the children’s father. Gennusa interrupted the mother and said, “I get all that, but that’s not a reason for the kids not to go to school.”

The mother said one of the children had witnessed the murder and had to go out of town to speak with the investigating detective.

“My kids are mentally unstable to go right now, and you’re not understanding, their father is gone,” the mother said. Gennusa said an order was already in place.

Gennusa also scolded the mother when she talked about a different case and when she nodded during testimony by the school truancy counselor.

“You’re shaking your head like you’ve done something wonderful,” Gennusa said, “and you haven’t. You’ve failed to comply with the court’s order.” She sentenced the mother to jail after a court recess.

  • State v. Morrison: In November 2023, Gennusa sentenced a misdemeanor defendant to 60 days in jail after he told a courtroom deputy to “Go f- – – yourself.” The deputy had asked the defendant to remove his hat and leave the courtroom when his cellphone rang.

Gennusa held the man in contempt before asking him to explain his comment. The man then asked for “a little bit of grace” because he had a stressful week and had just obtained his first “career job” in hopes of getting his daughter back. Gennusa sentenced the man to jail as he was crying.

The ethics charges said Gennusa’s behavior and use of her contempt power “raise serious questions about your fitness to serve as a judicial officer.”

Law360 and the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union have coverage of the charges.

Gennusa was appointed to the court last year and is running for reelection in November, according to the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union.

Her lawyer, Warren Lindsey, told the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union that Gennusa “has served the Putnam County community with great distinction since her appointment to the county court bench. … She is an excellent judge and person. However, the rules do not allow her to respond to the allegations except in legal filings, which will be submitted in the near future.”

One day after federal prosecutors said his arguments in favor of an early prison exit were “footless,” former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon is trying to “take advantage” of the First Step Act, criminal justice reform signed into law and “championed” by then President Donald Trump, in a bid for some leniency on his punishment for the “non-violent” offense of stonewalling the Jan. 6 Committee.

The Friday reply from Bannon, which comes weeks after he asked U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols to reimpose bail pending appeal based on “significant events,” reiterated that the federal inmate’s contempt of Congress stint behind bars should end before Election Day.