A federal judge who halted President Trump’s plan to deport illegal alien gang members quietly attended a partisan legal seminar backed by anti-Trump figures just weeks before his ruling. The event raises serious concerns about judicial neutrality and ethics.
Key Facts:
- Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court blocked President Trump’s deportation efforts targeting illegal alien gang members.
- Months prior, Boasberg attended a July 2024 legal conference hosted by the Rodel Institute in Sun Valley, Idaho.
- The seminar focused on themes like “Judges in a Democracy” and “State of Democracy” — phrases tied closely to Democrat messaging.
- Rodel Institute is funded by groups that support anti-Trump causes and policies.
- Boasberg’s financial disclosure offers no clear details on how much he was compensated or reimbursed for attending.
The Rest of The Story:
Judge Boasberg’s participation in the Rodel Institute’s Judicial Fellowship program has triggered new questions about judicial impartiality.
According to a judicial ethics report, Boasberg joined the July 2024 conference alongside other first-year fellows.
The event promoted discussions framed around “democracy,” echoing themes used widely in Democrat campaign rhetoric.
The Rodel Institute receives funding from sources known to back anti-Trump initiatives.
As @jsolomonReports revealed, Boasberg was named a fellow of the Rodel Institute.
"Following the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, the Rodel Foundation and the Aspen Institute agreed to spin off the Rodel program to create a new independent nonprofit organization, the… pic.twitter.com/IF073PNaPh
— Julie Kelly 🇺🇸 (@julie_kelly2) March 24, 2025
Many of the faculty and board members have a documented history of opposing Trump or his policies.
Just the News obtained confirmation of Boasberg’s attendance but found no record of whether he was paid or reimbursed, or how much.
A retired judge, himself appointed by Democrats, alerted reporters to the event, expressing concern about its partisan tone and timing so close to Boasberg’s ruling against the Trump administration.
NEW: AG Bondi has invoked the state secrets privilege and informs Judge Boasberg it will not disclose any more information on Tren de Aragua deportation flights.
Bondi emphasizes the heart of the case:
"This is a case about the President’s plenary authority." pic.twitter.com/h0cvidPFsp
— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) March 24, 2025
Commentary:
This situation raises serious concerns about judicial ethics and fairness.
When a federal judge attends a politically charged seminar weeks before issuing a ruling that benefits the same political faction, it undermines public trust.
The fact that Boasberg hasn’t addressed the financial aspects only deepens suspicions.
The judiciary is supposed to act as a neutral check on political power, not align with one side under the guise of education.
With ties to anti-Trump organizations and left-leaning foundations, the Rodel Institute is not a neutral venue.
Judges who attend such events should disclose every detail — from the content to the compensation — or decline the invitation altogether.
Judge Boasberg’s ruling didn’t happen in a vacuum.
It followed his cozy interaction with a circle of elites who are openly hostile to President Trump.
Whether or not he was influenced, the appearance of bias is undeniable.
That alone is enough to demand action.
Americans are tired of unelected judges steering national policy while rubbing elbows with partisan influencers.
Boasberg should be removed from this case, and his rulings should be overturned on appeal.
Justice should be blind — not politically programmed.
The broader concern is this: if judges can quietly attend partisan seminars and then issue rulings aligned with those politics, we no longer have an impartial judiciary.
We have a political machine with robes.
The Bottom Line:
Judge Boasberg’s attendance at a Democrat-aligned legal conference raises legitimate questions about his impartiality.
His failure to fully disclose compensation or address concerns only fuels public distrust.
The judiciary must remain neutral — and when it fails to do so, the consequences ripple far beyond one case.
Read Next
– Top Biden Attorney Found Dead Under Suspicious Circumstances
– After Chuck Schumer Threatens ‘Consequences’ For GOP Lawmakers, Speaker Mike Johnson Hits Back Hard
– Stunning New Poll Shows What Americans Think About Trump’s Deportation Policy