DOJ Files Complaint Against Judge Boasberg, Alleging Misconduct

DOJ Files Complaint Against Judge Boasberg, Alleging Misconduct

The Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the DOJ went this route with Boasberg for “making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration.”

Today at my direction, @TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration.

These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will…

— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) July 28, 2025

DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle expanded on Bondi’s comments:

Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief. Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was presiding.

Judge Boasberg violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, including the requirement that he “promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Today, at the direction of the Attorney General, DOJ filed a judicial misconduct complaint against him.

Federal judges often complain about the decline of public trust in the judiciary. But if the judiciary simply ignores improper conduct like Judge Boasberg’s, it will have itself to blame when the public stops trusting it.

Judge Boasberg first tried to persuade Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders, despite having no basis for his belief.  Then he acted on his baseless belief again and again in litigation over which he was… https://t.co/PsTAGSwnIp

— Chad Mizelle (@ChadMizelle47) July 28, 2025

The DOJ alleges Boasberg violated these cannons:

• Canon 1 “A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”
• Canon 2(A) “A judge should … act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
• Canon 3(A)(6) “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

The DOJ focused on the March 11 Judicial Conference, which “is the policymaking body of the federal judiciary.”

The Judicial Conference exists as an administrative body that only focuses “on policy matters related to court operations rather than substantive legal issues or specific cases.”

The last quote is vital due to what Boasberg said on March 11:

On March 11, 2025, at one of the Conference’s semiannual meetings, Judge Boasberg disregarded its history, tradition, and purpose to push a wholly unsolicited discussion about “concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts, leading to a constitutional crisis.” By singling out a sitting President who was (and remains) a party to dozens of active cases, Judge Boasberg attempted to transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.

Mizelle pointed out that Trump is a party to numerous lawsuits across the country, meaning any of the present judges could handle a case.

But more importantly, the cases would likely end up at the Supreme Court, meaning Roberts would be a part of the final decision regarding them.

“These comments to the Chief Justice and other federal judges in a public setting undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(6),” wrote Mizelle. “By expressing his view that a particular litigant would violate court orders, Judge Boasberg degraded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.”

A few days later, Boasberg granted a temporary restraining order to stop the removal of alleged Tren de Aragua (TRA) illegal aliens to Venezuela.

The thing is, Boasberg made the ruling hours after the filing, without giving the defendants a chance to appear in court.

Boasberg continued pushing President Donald Trump’s administration by expanding the TRO to cover the nation and putting together an emergency compliance hearing before the due date for the administration’s motion to vacate.

Just insane:

Over the next 48 hours he ordered declarations detailing flight paths and passenger counts—deadlines so compressed that DOJ twice sought relief, only to be rebuffed. This departure from standard practice confirms or at least gives the impression that his Conference prediction had hardened into judicial action driven by an agenda, not the facts and the law.

On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court summarily vacated Judge Boasberg’s class-wide TRO, confirming that Judge Boasberg lacked authority to issue it and underscoring that the rush to issue it sacrificed basic legal predicates. Undeterred by the Supreme Court’s reversal, Judge Boasberg still proceeded to issue a 46-page show-cause opinion threatening criminal contempt and the appointment of an outside prosecutor. Since then, the D.C. Circuit has also recognized Judge Boasberg’s errors, staying his decisions twice.

The SCOTUS decision didn’t stop Boasberg, who apparently thought he was above the law, claiming he found probable cause to hold the administration in contempt for disregarding his order.

Yes, Boasberg did this *after* SCOTUS vacated his TRO. In other words…the TRO didn’t exist when the administration started deportations again.

Boasberg seemed so determined to rile up Trump that he didn’t care that the case didn’t belong in his jurisdiction.

Boasberg is not an idiot. It doesn’t take a genius to know that the case should not have been in his court.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.