In the News, On the Bar: Contempt, Compliance, and Probable Cause

From time to time, real-world headlines offer a natural opportunity to revisit foundational legal principles. This series draws on those moments to help reinforce concepts commonly tested on the bar exam—always with care and respect for the people and circumstances involved.

This week, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a sharply worded ruling holding the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt for violating a court order by carrying out deportation flights that the court had expressly barred. In the ruling, he stated that there was probable cause to believe that government officials violated his injunction knowingly—setting the stage for possible criminal contempt proceedings.

That phrase—probable cause—might not seem all that exciting, but it’s a powerhouse in both real-world law and bar exam hypotheticals. It’s the kind of term that every bar taker needs to understand thoroughly and apply with precision. So let’s take this headline as a teaching moment.

What Does Probable Cause Actually Mean?

In bar exam terms, probable cause exists when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that a crime has been committed or that evidence of a crime will be found in a particular location. It's the minimum standard required under the Fourth Amendment for a lawful arrest or search and seizure.

Probable cause must be based on objective facts and not mere suspicion. For instance, an officer must have reasonably trustworthy information sufficient to warrant a prudent belief that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. This applies whether we’re talking about the search of a car, the arrest of a person, or the issuance of a warrant by a neutral and detached magistrate.

That analysis requires more than stating the rule. It means identifying exactly what the officer knew, why that information suggested a crime had occurred, and whether a reasonable officer in that position would agree.

Source: www.CNN.com

What Judge Boasberg’s Ruling Teaches Us

While Judge Boasberg wasn’t ruling on a search or an arrest, his opinion still leaned on the familiar concept of probable cause as a legal threshold. Specifically, he found probable cause to believe that government actors violated a court order, with sufficient evidence to support the possibility of criminal contempt. That’s not a Fourth Amendment question—but the concept works the same way.

On the bar exam, you’ll see this kind of reasoning all the time. The examiners want to know whether you can look at a messy set of facts, filter out the noise, and decide: was there enough information to support government action?

It’s not enough to say “yes” or “no.” You have to explain how the facts add up—or don’t.