Skip to the story
All stories

Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation flights

Justice Department argues judge overstepped by investigating potential contempt of court.

AI-assisted coverage comparison, editor-supervised · How this was made

Published
Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation flights

What this story says

  • A Justice Department attorney argued before an appeals court that a federal judge should end his contempt investigation into whether the Trump administration ignored an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
  • The case involves two planeloads of migrants protected by a temporary restraining order that departed the U.S. on their way to El Salvador.
  • The Trump administration has stated that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the transfer decision.
  • The American Civil Liberties Union stated that the government's decision to ignore the order had devastating consequences for the migrants.

Who covered it

Left 65%(17)Centre 31%(8)Right 4%(1)

Percentages are shares of the 26 outlets carrying a published leaning rating. 2 of the 28 outlets we know ran this story carry no rating and are not counted in them. Coverage measured .

Trust

42/100

Craft

61/100

Hype

41/100

28 sources · methodology

Thin on the right so far

Only 1 of the 26 outlets with a published leaning rating that ran this story are rated right.

This story is still being watched, so it is a count and not yet a finding. Coverage keeps arriving for hours after an event, and a side that has published nothing this morning may publish by tonight. If it is still true when we stop checking, we will say so plainly.

A Justice Department attorney argued before a federal appeals court that a judge should terminate his investigation into whether the Trump administration ignored an order blocking the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. The attorney, Brett Shumate, stated that the judge had no authority to conduct such an inquiry, as prosecutors, not judges, are responsible for investigating crimes. The case concerns two groups of migrants who were deported to El Salvador after a temporary restraining order was issued.

The Justice Department contends that the district court judge pursued the contempt inquiry with "myopic and single-minded determination." The Trump administration has said that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the transfer decision. The American Civil Liberties Union stated that the government's decision to ignore the order had devastating consequences for the migrants, who were allegedly held in harsh conditions in El Salvador.

Disagreement on judicial authority

The Justice Department attorney argued that the district court judge "has purported to investigate" and lost the authority to do so. However, Judge Patricia Millett questioned this, asking if district courts are allowed to decide if people have engaged in contempt before them. She suggested the dispute was about the definition of "investigate." The Justice Department stated that it advises clients to comply with court orders and that the government did comply in this case, though it acknowledged disagreement on that point.

What the coverage left out

None of the left-rated, centre-rated, or right-rated digests mention the specific details of the "devastating consequences" for the migrants in El Salvador that were detailed in the full report from Washington Top News, such as being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) and subjected to abuse.

Still developing. We have re-checked which outlets are covering this 3 times, most recently on 29 Sept 2026, 22:30, and will add the sides that appear.

How each side covered it

Our own reading of the reporting listed below, written from the outlets’ articles rather than quoted from them. The reasoning is set out on our methodology page.

Left

17 rated outlets

  • Left-rated reports focused on the appeals court appearing likely to allow the contempt probe to continue. Several digests stated that most judges on the court seemed inclined to permit the investigation into Trump officials for possible criminal contempt charges. The Toronto Star and Niagara Falls Review digests noted the Justice Department attorney argued the judge must end his "unlawful, unnecessary and futile" contempt investigation. Courthouse News Service reported that the full D.C. Circuit grilled the DOJ in its bid to block the probe. El Pais reported that the Trump administration was facing indictment for contempt after deporting Venezuelans to El Salvador.

Centre

8 rated outlets

  • Centre-rated reports highlighted the Justice Department's argument that the judge should end the contempt investigation. Digests from outlets like Washington Top News and My Mother Lode stated that a Justice Department attorney argued before an appeals court that a federal judge must end his "unlawful, unnecessary and futile" contempt investigation. Several digests noted the appeals court appeared skeptical of the government's case. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and WTVB digests mentioned the appeals court was weighing the fate of the judge's probe.

Right

1 rated outlet

  • The single right-rated digest reported that a U.S. Justice Department lawyer asked an appeals court to terminate a judge's inquiry into whether Trump administration officials willfully violated a judicial order to stop deportation flights of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador. The report noted the three-hour oral argument was the latest development in a standoff between the President and the federal judiciary.

Questions about this coverage

How did the left and right cover Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation…?
Of the 26 outlets on this story carrying a published leaning rating, 65% are rated left, 31% are rated centre, 4% are rated right. Those percentages are shares of the rated outlets, not of every outlet that ran it, which was 28. The sections above set out what each side emphasised, in its own terms.
Is Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation… left or right?
Neither side dominates it. Of the 26 rated outlets on this story, 65% are rated left, 31% are rated centre, 4% are rated right, and no side holds the 70% this site would want before calling a field one-sided. A story is not left or right in any case; the outlets that carried it are what carry ratings.
Is the coverage of Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation… biased?
Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation flights is one event reported by 28 outlets, and this page does not rate the story as biased or unbiased. What it publishes is the spread: which outlets ran it, where named rating organisations place each of them on the spectrum, and what each side chose to lead with. A leaning rating describes an outlet's record over time, not this article, and the two should not be run together.
Which side is not reporting Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation…?
When we first saw this story, outlets rated right had barely covered it. Coverage accretes for hours after an event, so that is where to look rather than a verdict — the split above is the current count, and it is the one to read.
Which outlets covered Appeals court hears bid to end contempt probe into Trump deportation…?
28 that we know of, every one of them listed further up this page with a link to its own report and to what we hold on the publisher. Nothing here is a summary of somebody else's summary: the outlets are named so the original reporting can be read.
What is the Justice Department asking the appeals court to do?
The Justice Department is asking the appeals court to end a federal judge's investigation into whether the Trump administration ignored a court order. The department argues that the judge overstepped his authority by initiating such a probe.
What order was allegedly ignored?
The order in question was a temporary restraining order issued by a federal judge that barred the Trump administration from transferring groups of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador. Two planeloads of migrants departed the U.S. for El Salvador after this order was in place.
What are the consequences for the migrants?
The American Civil Liberties Union stated that the government's decision to ignore the order had devastating consequences for the migrants. These included being held for months in a prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) and allegedly subjected to abuse, deprivation of food, water, and medical care.
What is the Trump administration's stance on responsibility?
The Trump administration has stated that then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was responsible for the transfer decision. The Justice Department also argues that the government complied with the order as it was best construed.

Read it at the source

28 outlets, grouped by the leaning a published rating gives them. Every headline links to the original; an underlined outlet name opens our profile of that publisher.

Left

17
Show 9 more

Centre

8

Right

1

Not rated

2

How did this read?

About the coverage, not about the story. We do not ask whether you agree with what happened — we have no honest use for that answer.

Trump Deportation Flights Probe | MediaBias News