The Department of Justice just dropped a bombshell, accusing U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg of crossing ethical lines with public comments that could shake the judiciary’s foundation.
The Washington Examiner reported that on Monday, the DOJ filed a misconduct complaint, claiming Boasberg’s remarks about the Trump administration risk sparking a constitutional crisis. This isn’t just a slap on the wrist—it’s a call for his removal from a high-stakes deportation case.
The DOJ alleges Boasberg, an Obama appointee, made improper comments during a Judicial Conference meeting, a gathering of top federal judges.
His remarks reportedly expressed fears that the Trump administration might ignore federal court rulings. The complaint, filed by DOJ chief of staff Chad Mizelle, argues these statements undermine the judiciary’s integrity.
At the March 11 Judicial Conference, Boasberg allegedly told colleagues and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts about judges’ concerns over the administration’s potential defiance.
“Concerned [ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings,” he reportedly said, according to a memo leaked by the Federalist. That’s a bold claim, but airing it publicly might’ve been a step too far for judicial decorum.
The leaked memo paints Boasberg as sounding an alarm, but the DOJ sees it as a breach of ethics. Judges are supposed to stay above the political fray, not fan the flames of partisan distrust. The complaint insists his words erode public confidence in an impartial judiciary.
Boasberg’s clash with the Trump administration centers on a deportation case involving alleged Venezuelan gang members.
The federal government, citing the Alien Enemies Act, authorized their deportation to El Salvador. Boasberg, however, threw a wrench in the plan with a temporary restraining order on March 15.
That restraining order demanded the return of planes already carrying deportees to El Salvador. The planes, however, kept flying, ignoring Boasberg’s last-minute intervention. It’s a messy situation, and the DOJ argues Boasberg’s public comments only make it messier.
The DOJ’s complaint doesn’t mince words, calling for Boasberg’s removal from the case and possible impeachment.
“Swift, visible action will reinforce the judiciary’s institutional integrity,” the complaint states. It’s a sharp jab, suggesting Boasberg’s actions demand more than a quiet reprimand.
Attorney General Pam Bondi echoed this sentiment, stating, “These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary.”
She’s not wrong—judges mouthing off about administrations risks turning courts into political battlegrounds. Yet, Boasberg’s defenders might argue he was just voicing legitimate concerns.
The complaint landed with Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Srinivasan now faces a tough call: dismiss the complaint, declare the issue resolved, or appoint a committee to investigate Boasberg. It’s a high-stakes decision that could ripple through the federal judiciary.
President Trump didn’t hold back, publicly suggesting Boasberg’s impeachment over the deportation case. His criticism adds fuel to an already fiery dispute, framing Boasberg as an obstacle to executive authority. But Trump’s rhetoric risks escalating a judicial spat into a full-blown political circus.
Boasberg’s temporary restraining order came after planes had already left for El Salvador, a fact that complicates his judicial overreach narrative.
The administration’s refusal to turn the planes around suggests a deeper tension between branches of government. It’s a classic power struggle, with Boasberg caught in the crosshairs.
The DOJ argues Boasberg’s comments violate ethical obligations, a charge that carries weight in conservative circles wary of activist judges. Judicial neutrality isn’t just a guideline—it’s the bedrock of a functioning legal system. Boasberg’s alleged slip-up could haunt his tenure.
Boasberg’s reported warning of a “constitutional crisis” isn’t a phrase to toss around lightly. It implies a breakdown in the rule of law, something conservatives fear when unelected judges flex too much muscle. Yet, some might see his candor as a brave stand against overreach.
The Federalist’s memo leak thrust this private judicial discussion into the public square, amplifying the DOJ’s case. Transparency is great, but airing internal judicial debates risks politicizing a branch meant to stay above the fray. Boasberg’s comments, however well-intentioned, handed his critics a loaded gun.
