Desperately Seeking Intimidation

The Department of Justice respectfully submits this complaint alleging misconduct by U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Donald J. Trump to the Chief Justice of the United States and other federal judges that have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary," says Mr. Mizelle.

Judge Boasberg is presiding over a high-profile case involving the deportation of several migrants to El Salvador and has talked about holding DOJ lawyers in contempt because of his assertion that his order to turn airborne planes around was not followed. President Trump has also made critical comments about Judge Boasberg.

The Justice Department, headed by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has filed an official complaint regarding US District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg. (Getty Images) The complaint details two occasions on which Judge Boasberg made comments the Justice Department alleges undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

"On March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg attended a session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which exists to discuss administrative matters like budgets, security, and facilities. While there, Judge Boasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders. Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions."

"Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders. First, although he lacked authority to do so, he issued a temporary restraining order preventing the Government from removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court summarily vacated.

"Taken together, Judge Boasberg’s words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and, erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation."

The Supreme Court did not “summarily vacate “ Boasberg’s injunction. They sided with with the plaintiffs; then limited the injunction, holding that challenges had to be based in venue, not nationwide injunctions.

In a real world argument that would be a picayune matter. But in a court complaint, where that assertion is a basis for seeking court action, details matter enormously. And these details are purely imaginary.

Not to mention the Judicial Conference is not “public” in the traditional sense. But, ironically (!), Boasberg’s prediction came true 4 days later, when he issued his injunction as planes were leaving the ground, and the government decided that removed them from Boasberg’s jurisdiction. It didn’t. Not even the Supremes said it did. Bondi claims that was too convenient, but no court has seen a problem with that timing. The administration was wrong. It still is.

Boasberg has found probable cause to hold individuals in the government in contempt for that decision. That finding is on appeal, and awaiting a decision by the appellate court.

So, gee, I wonder why Bondi filed this waste of time and money?