A confidential memo reveals that federal judges in Washington, D.C., questioned whether President Trump would comply with court orders—raising concerns about judicial impartiality in cases directly involving the former president.
Key Facts:
- A leaked memo from the March 11, 2025, Judicial Conference reveals internal discussions among D.C. judges about Trump’s compliance with court rulings.
- Federal Judge James Boasberg voiced concern to Chief Justice Roberts that the Trump administration might disregard federal court decisions.
- The Trump administration had complied with all rulings up to that point, making the expressed concern speculative at best.
- Judge Boasberg later issued rulings directly against Trump, including a block on deportations to El Salvador.
- The Supreme Court eventually sided with Trump, curbing the ability of individual judges to issue nationwide policy blocks.
The Rest of The Story:
At the March 2025 Judicial Conference, D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg reportedly warned Chief Justice John Roberts that he and other judges feared President Trump might ignore federal court orders.
According to the memo obtained by The Federalist, Roberts acknowledged the concern but said he hoped no constitutional crisis would occur and noted that his recent interactions with Trump were “civil and respectful.”
This wasn’t just a theoretical conversation about government processes.
At the time, Trump was actively involved in numerous lawsuits, including several pending in the very courts where these discussions took place.
As The Federalist points out, “Donald Trump…is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court.”
The memo casts doubt on whether Trump was being judged impartially.
Up to that point, his administration had fully complied with every federal court order.
Yet Boasberg and his colleagues apparently assumed otherwise, abandoning the long-standing legal presumption that public officials act in good faith.
Just days after the conference, Boasberg ordered Trump’s administration to halt deportations to El Salvador.
Later, he demanded that deported individuals be given a legal path to challenge their removal. These rulings intensified the perception of bias.
Still, Trump saw a legal win in June when the Supreme Court curbed the ability of individual federal judges to single-handedly block his policy agenda.
Trump called out the judicial overreach: “…a handful of radical left judges effectively try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,” he said.
“It’s a grave threat to democracy.”
🚨 It appears DC Obama Judge Jeb Boasberg plotted a constitutional crisis against President Trump just days before Boasberg illegally and dangerously exposed a military operation to expel terrorists.https://t.co/018vZyZNl0
— 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸 (@mrddmia) July 16, 2025
Commentary:
The D.C. court system has long been seen as hostile territory for Republican leaders, especially President Trump.
This leaked memo doesn’t just confirm suspicions—it documents them.
When judges privately speculate that a sitting president might ignore their rulings, despite full compliance, it reflects a deeper distrust that undermines judicial neutrality.
There’s no place in the federal judiciary for this kind of bias.
These are not simply discussions about legal theory.
They were judgments—made behind closed doors—about a president who was an active litigant in their courtroom. That crosses a line.
The law demands impartiality. And these judges failed that standard.
The role of a judge is to interpret the law, not to psychoanalyze elected officials or assume bad faith.
What makes this worse is that these assumptions weren’t based on behavior—they were based on who the president was.
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Would these same judges have preemptively questioned the integrity of a Democratic president?
This isn’t just about President Trump. It’s about trust in the system. Americans need to know that judges apply the law, not their personal politics.
And yet, too many federal judges have morphed into unelected policymakers.
Congress should consider serious reform. Any judge who is repeatedly overturned by higher courts should be removed.
The judiciary isn’t a lifetime club for ideologues. Accountability must apply to the bench just as it does to the presidency.
The courts are supposed to be a backstop for liberty—not a weapon against those elected by the people.
But the D.C. bench continues to act like a political actor, not an impartial branch of government.
That’s dangerous, and it needs to stop.
The Bottom Line:
The memo from the March 2025 Judicial Conference confirms what many already believed—Trump never had a fair shot in D.C. courts.
Instead of upholding legal standards, judges indulged in personal suspicion without evidence.
This revelation further erodes trust in the federal judiciary, especially when decisions from activist judges are later reversed.
The public deserves a court system that rules on law, not politics.
Read Next
– DOJ Gets Criminal Referral Involving Top Democrat Accused of Years-Long Real Estate Fraud’
– Trump Administration Files Charges Against Arizona Business Owner Busted for Hiring Illegals
– Trump Demands Full Review of Biden’s Document Authorization Process
– Corporate Mogul Changes His Mind About Trump, Calls Him ‘One of the Best Presidents Ever’
– Judge Bypasses SCOTUS Limits, Grants Sweeping Injunction Against Trump Birthright Citizenship Order
