boasberg

Last week, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, who shows more fealty to President Trump than to the U.S. Constitution she swore to uphold, filed a complaint against the only federal judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the government for defying his orders.

U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, she alleged, had undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary by making “improper public comments” about Trump to a group of federal judges that included Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

What is Boasberg alleged to have said?

No transcript has emerged, but according to Bondi’s complaint, at a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Boasberg is alleged to have expressed “a belief that the Trump Administration would ‘disregard rulings of the federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ ”

The Judicial Conference is the perfect place to air such concerns. It is the policy-making body for the federal judiciary, and twice a year about two dozen federal judges, including the Supreme Court chief justice, meet to discuss issues relevant to their work. Recently, for example, they created a task force to deal with threats of physical violence, which have heightened considerably in the Trump era. But nothing that happens in their private sessions could reasonably be construed as “public comments.”

“The Judicial Conference is not a public setting. It’s an internal governing body of the judiciary, and there is no expectation that what gets said is going to be broadcast to the world,” explained former U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel, who spent seven years as director of the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, a kind of think tank for the judiciary. I reached out to Fogel because he is part of a coalition of retired federal judges — the Article III Coalition of the nonpartisan civic education group Keep Our Republic — whose goal is to defend the independence of the judiciary and promote understanding of the rule of law.

Bondi’s complaint accuses Boasberg of attempting 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.”

You know how they say that every accusation is a confession in Trump World?

A mere four days after Boasberg raised his concerns to fellow federal judges, the Trump administration defied his order against the deportation of Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.

You probably remember that one. A plane carrying the deportees was already in the air, and despite the judge’s ruling, Trump officials refused to order its return. “Oopsie,” tweeted El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele after it landed. “Too late!”

Thus began the administration’s ongoing pattern of ignoring or flouting the courts in cases brought against it. It’s not as if the signs were not there. “He who saves his Country does not violate any law,” Trump wrote on social media in February, paraphrasing Napoleon Bonaparte, the dictatorial 19th century emperor of France.

In June, Erez Reuveni, a career Department of Justice attorney who was fired when he told a Maryland judge the government had deported someone in error, provided documents to Congress that implicated Emil Bove, Trump’s one-time criminal defense attorney, in efforts to violate Boasberg’s order to halt the deportation of the Venezuelans. According to Reuveni’s whistleblower complaint, Bove, who was acting deputy attorney general at the time, said the administration should consider telling judges who order deportations halted, “F— you.”

Bove denied it. And last week, even though other Justice Department whistleblowers corroborated Reuveni’s complaint, Bove was narrowly confirmed by the Senate to a lifetime appointment as a federal appeals court judge.

“The Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” wrote Bondi in her complaint against Boasberg. This is laughable.

A July 21 Washington Post analysis found that Trump and his appointees have been credibly accused of flouting court rulings in a third of more than 160 lawsuits against the administration in which a judge has issued a substantive ruling. The cases have involved immigration, and cuts to the federal funding and the federal work force. That record suggests, according to the Post, “widespread noncompliance with America’s legal system.”

Legal experts told the Post that this pattern is unprecedented and is a threat to our system of checks and balances at a moment when the executive branch is asserting “vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution.”

It’s no secret that Trump harbors autocratic ambitions. He adores Hungarian strongman Viktor Orbán, who has transformed the Hungarian justice system into an instrument of his own will and killed off the country’s independent media. “It’s like we’re twins,” Trump said in 2019, after hosting Orbán at the White House. Trump has teased that he might try to seek an unconstitutional third term. He de-legitimizes the press. His acolytes in Congress will not restrain him. And now he has trained his sights on the independent judiciary urging punishment of judges who thwart his agenda.

On social media, he has implied that Boasberg is “a radical left lunatic,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”

Some of Trump’s lapdogs in the House immediately introduced articles of impeachment (which are likely to go nowhere).

Roberts was moved to rebuke Trump: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said in a statement. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Some described his words as “stern.” I found them to be rather mild, considering the damage Trump’s rhetoric inflicts on the well-being of judges.

“It’s part of a longer term pattern of trying to … weaken the ability of the judiciary to put checks on executive power, ” Fogel told me. He is not among those who think we are in a constitutional crisis. Yet.

“Our Constitution has safeguards in it,” Fogel said. “Federal judges have lifetime tenure. We are in a period of Supreme Court jurisprudence that has given the executive a lot of leeway, but I don’t think it’s unlimited.”

I wish I shared his confidence.

Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Trump’s administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

Escalating the administration’s conflict with U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg “for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration.”

The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by the Associated Press.

The comments “have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the complaint says, adding that the administration has “always complied with all court orders.” Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders.

The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law.

The judge’s verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court.

The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting.

Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation’s capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public.

The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations.

Trump himself already has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call.

The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela.

But the lawsuit over the deportations and the administration’s response to Boasberg’s order remains in his court.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press.

July 29 (UPI) — Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday evening announced that a misconduct complaint has been filed against District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg “for making improper public comments” about President Donald Trump, amid his administration’s targeting of the U.S. judicial system.

Boasberg, a President Barack Obama appointee, has rejected Trump’s attempt to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador to be interned in a notorious mega prison for terrorists, attracting the ire of the president, who has called for the judge’s impeachment.

The complaint, obtained by both Politico and Courthouse News, focuses on comments made by Boasberg to Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges who attended a March 11 judicial conference.

According to the document, Boasberg said he believed that the Trump administration would “disregard rulings of federal courts,” which would trigger “a constitutional crisis.”

The Justice Department alleges that the comments deviated from the administrative matters generally discussed at the conference and were intended to influence Roberts and the other judges.

The conference was held amid litigation on Trump’s ability to summarily deport the Venezuelan migrants, and days before Boasberg ruled against the administration. He also ruled that Trump had deported the migrants to El Salvador in violation of his order — an order that was vacated in April by a divided Supreme Court.

The complaint states that within days of making the alleged comments, he “began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump administration would not follow court orders.”

“These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi said in a statement on X announcing the filing of the complaint.

The Trump administration has attracted staunch criticism from the legal profession over actions it has taken that have been described as targeting the independence of the U.S. judiciary system.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has threatened to impeach judges who rule against him, including Boasberg, described them as “rouge judges,” sanctioned law firms and lawyers linked to his political adversaries and has ignored or defied rulings he disagrees with.

His administration most recently fired newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Desiree Leigh Grace because the New Jersey judges did not select Trump’s pick for the position.

The complaint against Boasberg was signed by Chad Mizelle, chief of staff for Bondi, who alleged in a statement that Boasberg’s March comments violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.

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

The Justice Department, in the complaint, is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to launch a special investigation to determine whether Boasberg’s conduct constitutes prejudice against the Trump administration. It also seeks “interim corrective measures,” including reassignment of the cases related to the deportation of the Venezuelan migrants to another judge.

The complaint is also the second that the Trump administration has filed against a judge. In February, Bondi filed a complaint — which is still under review — against Judge Ana Reyes for “hostile and egregious misconduct” against the Trump administration during litigation on the president’s executive order to ban transgender service members from the military.