In March of 2025, the D.C. District Court held an emergency hearing regarding allegations that the government was preparing to invoke the Alien Enemies Act to remove Venezuelan nationals in immigration custody without due process. The court quickly ordered “any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air” to be returned to the United States. But the government would not take no for an answer. In defiance of the court’s order, the government decided to transport these immigration detainees to a notorious foreign prison where they were subjected to physical abuse and deprived of food, water, and medical care.

The district court chose to investigate whether government officials intentionally violated the order, but the Trump administration resisted this effort at every turn. Eventually, the district court ordered a hearing because it “believe[d] that it [wa]s necessary to hear witness testimony to better understand the bases of the decision to transfer the deportees out of United States custody.” The administration filed a writ of mandamus trying to block the proceedings, arguing that “it should be plain that the government did not commit criminal contempt” by violating the order and that the anticipated investigation would exceed the court’s “proper role” in criminal contempt proceedings.

In August 2026, the Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit opposing the government’s request. Our brief explains that the district court’s investigation can proceed because it may support civil sanctions, as well as a referral for criminal contempt proceedings. The brief makes three principal points.

First, federal courts have the inherent authority to investigate and sanction bad-faith conduct. This authority is part of a broader array of inherent judicial powers, like the power to hold a party in contempt, to discipline attorneys, and to dismiss a case sua sponte. These powers were understood to be inherent in all courts by the time the Constitution was ratified.

Second, civil sanctions may be used to respond to fraud on the court, especially when such fraud aims to defeat the court’s jurisdiction. Specifically, courts may sanction parties that use fraud to deprive the court of jurisdiction. This rule rests on courts’ inherent authority to prevent destruction or removal of the litigation’s subject matter to ensure that any eventual order will not be rendered useless. In unlawful detention cases, this principle authorizes courts to sanction those who remove or harm a prisoner whose liberty is the subject of pending litigation.

Finally, district courts have the inherent authority to conduct investigations to determine whether sanctions are appropriate. The Supreme Court has explained that courts have an “inherent power” to investigate whether “fraud has been practiced upon it.” This rule makes sense: If a court has the inherent authority to sanction the parties that appear before it, it must have the power to investigate whether such sanctions are appropriate.