Colette Sartor
LightNews LightNews
banner
colettesartor.bsky.social
Colette Sartor
@colettesartor.bsky.social
490 followers 230 following 140 posts
Writer/Teacher/Obsessor | linktr.ee/colettesartor | ONCE REMOVED (Flannery O’Connor Award) | CineStory Executive Director | Proud Feminist | Em-Dash & Oxford Comma 💙er | she/her
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Colette Sartor
mjsdc.bsky.social
Boasberg gives the government two options: "purge" the contempt—likely by providing habeas proceedings to the expelled migrants—or else identify which officials should be subject to his punishment.

He would appoint an attorney to prosecute the contempt. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
B. Next Steps So now what? The Court last details the next steps that these proceedings may take. First, before initiating any criminal-contempt proceedings, courts typically allow the contumacious party an opportunity to purge its contempt — that is, to remedy its violation by voluntarily obeying the court order. See Yates v. United States, 355 U.S. 66, 75 (1957) (“[A] court should first apply coercive remedies in an effort to persuade a party to obey its orders, and only make use of the more drastic criminal sanctions when the disobedience continues.”); cf. 9A Wright & Miller, supra, § 2465 (“The district judge normally will preface a contempt citation with an order directing either compliance with the subpoena or a showing of an excuse for the noncompliance.”). The most obvious way for Defendants to do so here is by asserting custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding. See J.G.G., 2025 WL 1024097, at *2. Per the terms of the TRO, the Government would not need to release any of those individuals, nor would it need to transport them back to the homeland. The Court will also give Defendants an opportunity to propose other methods of coming into compliance, which the Court will evaluate. In the event that Defendants do not choose to purge their contempt, the Court will proceed to identify the individual(s) responsible for the contumacious conduct by determining whose “specific act or omission” caused the noncompliance. See Cobell v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1128, 1147 (D.C. Cir. 2003); United States v. Voss, 82 F.3d 1521, 1525–27 (10th Cir. 1996). At the suggestion of the Government in the last hearing, the Court will begin by requiring declarations. See Apr. 3 Hrg. Tr. at 24–25. Should those be unsatisfactory, the Court will proceed either to hearings with live witness testimony under oath or to depositions conducted by Plaintiffs. Id. at 29–30 (Plaintiffs suggesting declarations, depositions, hearings). The next step would be for the Court, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to “request that the contempt be prosecuted by an attorney for the government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2). If the Government “declines” or “the interest of justice requires,” the Court will “appoint another attorney to prosecute the contempt.” Id.
April 16, 2025 at 4:12 PM