Appellate Court Slams Judge Boasberg and Halts Contempt Investigation of Trump Officials; DOJ Reverses Jan. 6 Seditious Conspiracy Cases; and, Musk Sues over OpenAI
Federal appeals court reins in Judge Boasberg (again!) the Justice Department moves to undo Jan 6 convictions; and Elon Musk’s high-stakes lawsuit against OpenAI threatens to reshape the AI industry.
For the Lawsplainer this week, we have (i) a Court of Appeals ending an improper criminal contempt investigation into Trump Administration officials for deporting violent gang members; (ii) the Department of Justice seeking dismissal of convictions relating to January 6, 2021; and (iii) an overview of the impending trial between Elon Musk and OpenAI, in which Musk requests that OpenAI return to its non-profit roots and end alleged self-dealing by its leadership.
Court of Appeals Orders Judge James Boasberg to end his Criminal Contempt Investigation of Trump Officials for Deporting Gang Members
The zealous effort of D.C. federal District Court Judge James Boasberg to hold members of the Trump Administration in criminal contempt for deporting members Ren de Aragua – a Venezuelan criminal gang and designated foreign terrorist organization – has been ended by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Back in early 2025, the Trump Administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang from Venezuelan, ordering a number of its members (including those that would sue the government) to be detained and removed from the United States. Some members were placed on planes to El Salvador’s ultra-security prison. A federal lawsuit concerning these efforts was filed in the District of Columbia and the case was assigned to Judge Boasberg. After that plane left the country, Judge Boasberg ordered the government not to remove the plaintiffs from the United States through an oral order.
The Supreme Court would eventually vacate Judge Boasberg’s order on the grounds that it was based on a legal error and because the plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought in the wrong court. (Venue was proper in Texas because the detainees were confined in Texas.) Despite that ruling, Judge Boasberg threatened government officials with criminal contempt unless they complied with the investigation into the alleged violation of the order the Supreme Court had already vacated.
Faced with this ongoing criminal contempt investigation, the government sought relief from the federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. On April 14, 2026, the Court of Appeals vacated Judge Boasberg’s order with instructions to terminate the “criminal contempt proceedings in this case.”
The appellate opinion issued by Judge Neomi Rao is a fascinating read that covers the extraordinary and improper lengths Judge Boasberg went to pursue a criminal contempt case against those within the Trump Administration – even after his order had been deemed unlawful by higher courts. Judge Rao noted that the relief requested by the government was appropriate “to forestall unwarranted judicial intrusion into Executive Branch decision-making regarding matters of national security.”
In essence, Judge Boasberg’s investigation was “unnecessary” and he had assumed an “antagonistic jurisdiction” in pursuit of his “improper inquest against the Executive.” The investigation of Executive Branch deliberations involving national security and foreign affairs are those types of “matters constitutionally committed to the political branches, not the courts.”
Moreover, the temporary restraining order that Boasberg alleged the government had violated could not “support criminal contempt” because it “did not clearly and specifically bar the government from transferring plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody.” As observed by Judge Justin Walker in his concurring opinion, the government did not violate Judge Boasberg’s “order while it was in effect.”
DOJ Seeks Dismissal of January 6 Seditious Conspiracy Convictions
In more good news, on April 14, the Trump Administration moved to vacate and dismiss the seditious conspiracy convictions of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys relating to the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
The government sought to undo the defendants’ convictions because it has “determined in its prosecutorial discretion that dismissal of this criminal case is in the interests of justice.” Because President Trump has commuted their sentences, it would not serve “the interests of justice to continue to prosecute this case or the cases of other, similarly situated defendants.”
Once this unopposed motion is granted by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, it will be remanded to the district court so the government may move to dismiss the indictments against the defendants.
Image by MSN, Times Now Digital
Elon Musk’s lawsuit against OpenAI and its founder, Sam Altman, may very well reshape the artificial intelligence landscape
Musk’s case against Altman, OpenAI, and a number of other defendants – including OpenAI leadership, its related companies, and Microsoft – was filed back in August 2024. In his latest complaint, filed May 22, 2025, it is alleged that Altman and other defendants intentionally deceived Musk by claiming OpenAI would be a non-profit entity that would “conduct leading AI research and development” and “decentralize its technology by making it open source.” Altman further assured Musk that “the non-profit structure guaranteed neutrality and a focus on safety and openness for the benefit of humanity, not shareholder value or individual enrichment. But after Musk lent his name to the venture as its co-chairman, invested significant time, tens of millions of dollars in seed capital, and recruited top AI scientists for OpenAI, Inc., Musk and the non-profit’s namesake objective were betrayed by Altman and his accomplices.”
According to Musk, he was a central figure in the formation and critical early stages of OpenAI. He funded operations through contributions of over $44 million in its first five critical years and helped secure its key talent. As part of those contributions, Musk was promised that OpenAI would continue to operate as a non-profit and work to “benefit the public and humanity rather than for private gain.”
Instead, it is alleged that Altman and others created for-profit entities to loot OpenAI’s “only valuable assets” – its intellectual property and employees. OpenAI has also exclusively licensed its technology to Microsoft (a defendant in this case), in violation of its charter and its promises to Musk.
Musk further alleges that Altman has caused OpenAI to sign million-dollar supplier deals with companies in which Altman has invested. In total, Altman “stands to make billions from the non-profit Musk co-founded.” Musk further claims:
“Altman’s scheme has now become clear: lure Musk with phony philanthropy; exploit his money, stature, and contacts to secure world-class AI scientists to develop leading technology; then feed the non-profit’s lucrative assets into an opaque profit engine and proceed to cash in as OpenAI and Microsoft monopolize the generative AI market.”
With respect to Microsoft, it is alleged:
“On information and belief, Microsoft, acting in lockstep with the other Defendants, stands to make hundreds of billions from its methodical infiltration of, and increasing leverage over, the non-profit, its technology, and employees, to the point that Microsoft now exercises effective control over OpenAI—a de facto merger in terms of Microsoft’s accumulation of assets, equity, and dominance over OpenAI.”
Overall, Musk seeks remedies “to prevent the subordination of a public charity – one he co-founded and for which he was the primary supporter during its formative years – to private, for-profit interests.” If defendants are found to have breached OpenAI’s charitable trust, unjustly enriched themselves at the charity’s expense, committed fraud, or any other claim asserted by Musk, he seeks the following equitable relief:
A permanent injunction requiring OpenAI operate as a non-profit in accordance with its original charter.
An order removing Altman as director from the OpenAI non-profit board.
An order requiring Altman and others to return all financial benefits from self-dealing transactions, as well as the “disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains flowing from OpenAI’s unauthorized for-profit conversion and operations.”
An order “unwinding the for-profit conversion and restructuring as a purported public benefit corporation, restoring OpenAI to the role of a bona fide public charity that operates as the nonprofit it was intended to be.”
This is not, however, an easy case for Elon Musk. OpenAI has provided a summary of past communications and interactions with Musk where he is said to have “wanted an OpenAI for-profit.” For example, it released text messages that summarized a meeting with Musk, where he is alleged to have supported transitioning from non-profit to for-profit: “non-profit was def the right one early on, may not be the right one now.” And even if Musk is victorious at trial, there is no guarantee that he gets all of the relief he requested.
It is clear that Musk, though he has a competing AI firm, is interested in acquiring OpenAI. In February 2025, Musk and other investors made a $97.4 billion bid to purchase the non-profit that controls OpenAI. That bid was rejected by OpenAI’s board of directors.
Despite the lawsuit and the trial to start on April 27, OpenAI continues to raise funds and grow revenue. On March 31, 2026, it closed its latest funding round, obtaining “$122 billion in committed capital at a post money valuation of $852 billion.” It is generating $2 billion in revenue per month and is in discussions to go public as early as the fourth quarter of 2026.