A judge opposed to Trump, who has obstructed the president’s agenda through nationwide injunctions, is now facing a reversal of fortunes due to a recently submitted complaint by the U.S. Justice Department.
In the complaint, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accuses District Judge James Boasberg of exhibiting “improper” behavior by claiming that President Donald Trump is inciting a “constitutional crisis” through personal attacks on judges who have issued nationwide injunctions that impede parts of his agenda. Boasberg has been pivotal in suspending mass deportation flights.
In retaliation, Trump has labeled Boasberg as a “Radical Left Lunatic Judge” and a “troublemaker” in several social media posts.
Bondi’s complaint criticizes Boasberg for his remarks, asserting that they have “undermined” his capacity to impartially conduct future hearings concerning the administration. She also highlights that Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts supported Trump upon learning of Boasberg’s private comments.
“Today at my direction, [the Justice Department] filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,” Bondi stated on Monday via X.
“These comments have compromised the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not tolerate that,” she added.
Twice annually, the Judicial Conference convenes in Washington, D.C., to evaluate the standards that federal judges across the nation must adhere to. The most recent meeting took place during the week of March 11. Records from this meeting indicate that Judge Boasberg was a topic of discussion.
“District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg subsequently raised his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration might ignore federal court rulings, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis,” a document states.
“Chief Justice Roberts expressed optimism that such a scenario would not occur, thereby preventing any constitutional crisis from arising.
The note explicitly states that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him during the state of the union address for administering the oath.”
Shortly after the memo was made public, Bondi initiated her first action against Boasberg, alleging that the judge possessed an anti-Trump bias that influenced his ruling in the mass deportation case.
At that time, she described Boasberg as “highly conflicted” in his assessment of President Trump.
Trump agreed, labeling his judicial adversary as “disgraceful” and asserting that he suffers from “massive Trump Derangement Syndrome.”
Boasberg’s initial ruling followed a lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of five Venezuelan nationals who were facing deportation by the Trump administration under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Boasberg found the statute inapplicable, stating that it only pertains to “declared” conflicts and noted that the situation at the southern border did not meet this criterion, as reported by the Daily Mail.
