The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a misconduct complaint against District Court Judge James Boasberg following a report by The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland, who revealed that Boasberg made inappropriate remarks about President Donald Trump.
On Monday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a post on X: “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.”
“These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi continued.
The announcement comes less than two weeks after Boasberg, according to a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, advised Chief Justice John Roberts and other judges that he and his colleagues were “concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”
During the Judicial Conference, which, according to the U.S. Court’s webpage, is “the national policymaking body for the federal courts,” Boasberg and others engaged in discussion showing, as Cleveland described it, a “predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump administration.”
According to the memo, Roberts “expressed hope that [concerns the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts] would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize.”
Roberts also said, according to the memo, that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.”
But as Cleveland pointed out, Trump is not just the president: “He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits.”
“As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders,” Cleveland explained.
The comments reveal an anti-Trump bias among Boasberg and his colleagues, especially since, as Cleveland explained, courts typically presume that public officials discharge their official duties properly.
The bias was made even more apparent when, just days after this conference, Boasberg issued an injunction ordering the Trump administration to halt removals to El Salvador. The Supreme Court later ruled that Boasberg lacked the authority to issue such a lawless injunction. Prior to the Supreme Court slapping down Boasberg’s attempt at judicial supremacy, Boasberg — who made his anti-Trump bias clear — found “the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court” by failing to turn the planes headed to El Salvador around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though, as Cleveland explained, “the court’s written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither.”
Boasberg’s conduct confirms what many have suspected, that is, the judiciary is not merely adjudicating, but rather working to undermine the president from the bench, making Bondi’s announcement paramount to restoring integrity in the judiciary.
Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2