The Department of Justice has launched a formal misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. The complaint accuses him of making biased, anti-Trump statements to fellow judges and of improperly interfering in a key immigration case.
Key Facts:
- The DOJ, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg for judicial misconduct.
- Boasberg is accused of telling other judges that President Trump would disregard court rulings and cause a constitutional crisis.
- The complaint was submitted by Chad Mizelle, Bondi’s Chief of Staff, to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit.
- The DOJ also asks that Boasberg be removed from an ongoing deportation case, J.G.G. v Trump.
- This is the second complaint filed by the DOJ this year against a federal judge over alleged political bias in court proceedings.
The Rest of The Story:
The Justice Department is seeking an investigation into Judge James Boasberg for remarks he allegedly made during a March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference.
According to the complaint, Boasberg warned Chief Justice Roberts and other judges that the Trump administration might ignore court orders, potentially triggering a constitutional crisis.
The DOJ claims these statements were made without evidence and amounted to improper political interference.
Shortly after that meeting, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportation of Tren de Aragua gang members, which the Supreme Court later struck down.
The DOJ points to this and other decisions as evidence of a pattern of bias against the Trump administration.
Boasberg also presides over a high-profile class action case involving the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
His controversial emergency order grounded planes already en route and demanded they return immediately.
The administration’s failure to comply led to contempt proceedings, where Boasberg accused the DOJ of showing “willful disregard” for his ruling.
In court, DOJ lawyers said they would only follow “lawful” orders, suggesting they may appeal Boasberg’s rulings.
Meanwhile, civil rights lawyers have asked Boasberg to reopen discovery in the deportation case, citing fresh information from a U.N. report and recent migrant transfers.
This isn’t the first time the Bondi-led DOJ has targeted a judge for alleged misconduct.
In February, it filed a complaint against Judge Ana Reyes over her handling of a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s ban on transgender military service.
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
Commentary:
The complaint against Judge Boasberg adds weight to growing concerns about judicial impartiality in the federal courts—especially in Washington, D.C.
Boasberg’s alleged behavior raises serious red flags about his ability to fairly judge cases involving President Trump or his administration’s policies.
Making inflammatory predictions to other judges about the Trump administration supposedly causing a constitutional crisis, without evidence, is far beyond the role of a neutral arbiter.
When a judge expresses such views in a closed-door judicial meeting, it’s not only unethical—it undermines public confidence in the court’s neutrality.
Boasberg’s subsequent actions—like issuing orders that exceeded his authority and attempting to hold DOJ officials in contempt—seem to confirm his bias.
The Supreme Court’s decision to vacate his restraining order on violent migrants further weakens his legal standing and raises questions about his motivations.
The reality is that many D.C. Circuit judges operate in a political echo chamber.
When judges act like partisan operatives, the credibility of the entire system erodes.
It’s not just about Boasberg—it’s about a judicial culture in the capital that increasingly appears stacked against any policy agenda that doesn’t align with its progressive majority.
This trend is corrosive.
Federal judges swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not to act as political saboteurs.
If their decisions are tainted by personal ideology, the rule of law suffers.
Judges who allow their political leanings to guide their rulings should be removed from the bench.
They are no longer fulfilling their duty as impartial interpreters of the law.
Boasberg’s conduct, as alleged by the DOJ, fits this pattern too neatly.
Bringing these cases outside of the D.C. Circuit, whenever possible, may be the only way for the Trump administration to receive a fair hearing.
Judges should be judged not by who appointed them, but by whether they apply the law fairly—something Boasberg appears unwilling to do.
The Bottom Line:
The DOJ’s misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg reflects mounting concern over judicial bias in high-stakes political cases.
His alleged anti-Trump remarks and aggressive court actions raise serious questions about his impartiality.
As the legal battles over immigration and executive authority continue, this case could serve as a major test of whether the federal judiciary can hold itself accountable—or whether politics now trumps the rule of law.
Read Next
– Trump and EU Seal Surprise Deal After Last-Minute Talks
– Trump Slams Kamala, Celebs Over Alleged Pay-For-Play Endorsements, ‘They Should All Be Prosecuted’
– New Poll Shows Democrat Favorability Hits 35 Year Low, GOP Gains on Key Issues
