Justice Department files misconduct complaint against judge in key deportations case
The complaint against U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg, filed by Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff Chad Mizelle, alleges that Boasberg made improper comments during a judicial conference in March.
'While there,' Mizelle wrote, '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.'"
NBC News has not verified the remarks, which Mizelle said took place on March 11. The conference was not open to the public.
'Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis,' Mizelle added in his five-page letter to D.C. Circuit of Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan.
Mizelle went on to say in the complaint that the Trump administration has complied with 'all' court orders, and that Boasberg didn't identify any violations of court orders to justify what Mizelle called 'his unprecedented predictions.'
Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday night.
'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,' Bondi wrote in a post on X.
'These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,' she added.
Boasberg is assigned to several notable cases involving the Trump administration, none more high-profile than the Alien Enemies Act case, filed in mid-March when three deportation flights took off from the U.S. en route to El Salvador. During an emergency hearing at the time, Boasberg ordered that any planes that were midair and bound for El Salvador return to the United States after Trump's executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act for deportations was made public.
The judge later found cause to initiate contempt proceedings to determine whether the Trump administration was in willful violation of court orders. The process, however, has been temporarily paused by an appeals court.
'Having assumed President Trump would defy court orders, Judge Boasberg issued a [temporary restraining order] and threatened sanctions—all on a false premise," the complaint says, noting that the judge spoke at the conference days before ruling from the bench in the deportations case. "Such conduct violates litigants' trust in an impartial judiciary and falls below the standards that safeguard the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in that integrity.'
Mizelle asked Srinivasan to refer the matter to a special investigative committee to determine whether Boasberg's conduct constituted 'conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.'
He also asked for Boasberg's Alien Enemies Act case to be reassigned to another judge while the investigation proceeds, and to impose disciplinary action, including a public reprimand and referral to the Judicial Conference for consideration of impeachment‑related recommendations, if the committee finds willful misconduct.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Trump administration to formally axe Elon Musk's 'five things' email
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Trump administration plans as soon as Tuesday to formally axe a program launched by billionaire former Trump adviser Elon Musk requiring federal employees to summarize their five workplace achievements from the prior week, two people familiar with the matter said. The Office of Personnel Management, the federal human resources agency that implemented Musk's push to slash the federal workforce, plans to announce the end of the "five things" email to HR representatives across the federal government later on Tuesday, the two people said, declining to be named because the matter was not public. While many federal agencies had already phased out compliance with the weekly email, the move, not previously reported, signals the Trump administration is turning the page on one of Musk's most unpopular initiatives following a dramatic row between the two men in early June. The White House and OPM did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk, who spent over a quarter of a billion dollars to help Trump win November's presidential election, led the Department of Government Efficiency's efforts to slash the budget and cut the federal workforce until his departure in May to refocus on his tech empire. Musk initially received a warm White House sendoff from Trump, but then incurred the president's wrath by describing Trump's tax cut and spending bill as an abomination. Trump pulled the nomination of Musk ally and tech entrepreneur Jared Isaacman to lead NASA and later threatened to cancel billions of dollars worth of federal contracts with Musk's companies after the blowup between the two men. The "five things" email, launched by Musk in February to boost accountability, sparked tensions with department chiefs who were blindsided by the weekend email mandating the move. It also fueled confusion among government workers who received mixed messages about whether and how to comply. Reuters reported in March that the White House installed two Trump loyalists at OPM to ensure better policy coordination between the White House and the agency. Scott Kupor, a venture capitalist who took the helm at OPM in July, foreshadowed the end of the initiative last month, describing processing of the weekly response emails as "very manual" and "not efficient." It is "something that we should look at and see, like, are we getting the value out of it that at least the people who put it in place thought they were," he said.
The Hill
10 minutes ago
- The Hill
VFW had a seat at the table. Now they're trying to flip it.
Too many of America's disabled veterans continue to struggle to access the VA disability benefits they've earned. The consequences are stark: 33,000 veterans are homeless, and an average of 17 die by suicide each day. While the Trump administration has made incredible strides in cutting the VA claims backlog by 25 percent since January, Congress must take further action to ensure that our veterans no longer have to fight and claw for the benefits that are often the difference between life and death. That's why I introduced the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 — a bill that protects veterans from fraud and exploitation and ensures they have the right to choose how to navigate the benefits process. My legislation allows veterans to choose help from accredited private claims agents if they prefer, all while keeping in place the full range of free support options — such as those offered by Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW. The CHOICE for Veterans Act includes strong safeguards: no upfront fees, mandatory disclosure of free alternatives, capped fees and no payment unless benefits are secured. This ensures that veterans don't go into debt to file claims. The CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025 is about trust, transparency and real choice. I spent months in conversation with the major Veterans Service Organizations like the VFW and American Legion. I directly addressed their legitimate concerns about fraud and exploitation. My office invited them in, listened carefully, and incorporated into the bill strong language that addressed every objection they raised. Their input helped shape the final version of the CHOICE for Veterans Act of 2025. That's why the VFW's recent public opposition is so frustrating. They know that the bill doesn't put veterans in debt because they helped shape the very safeguards it includes. The truth is, the CHOICE for Veterans Act contains some of the strongest financial protections ever included in legislation designed to serve our veterans. The bill was crafted to expand access to disability claims services by offering accredited private help without removing any existing options. Veterans can still work with Veterans Service Organizations or file claims on their own — that hasn't changed. This bill simply ensures the right to seek specialized assistance. Nothing in the bill eliminates current options. The claims assistance system remains intact, with the added benefit of giving veterans the choice of specialized assistance. No two disability claims are the same, and they shouldn't be treated as such. The VFW's claims are misleading and directly contradicted by the bill's text. The CHOICE Act clearly requires that veterans are informed of all available free options at every step of the claims process. This includes the VA itself and the Veterans Service Organizations that veterans have always had access to. Veterans deserve honesty about what this bill actually does — and it's time for the VFW to stop misleading them. If a veteran does choose to work with a paid consultant, the rules are strict. No upfront fees are allowed. Veterans cannot be charged one penny until their claim is resolved in their favor. When a claim is resolved, a veteran must be given the option to pay in installments that don't exceed their monthly increase from the VA, and no interest can ever be charged on payment plans. Veterans secure lifetime benefits in exchange for a limited, interest-free fee, paid only to accredited experts. Our goal has always been to expand access to benefits through an all-of-the-above approach that protects disabled veterans from poverty, debt and exploitation. These protections are not hidden, nor are they optional. They are mandated by the bill. What veterans are asking for is simple: faster results and fewer delays. They want someone who can help them navigate a complex process without making it worse. This is a recurring issue I hear from veterans in my district. The political games and false narratives surrounding the CHOICE for Veterans Act must stop. This issue is far too important to be bogged down by mis- and dis-information campaigns. As a proud veteran myself, I look forward to the day when President Trump signs this bill into law, so we can begin to seriously confront the crises facing disabled veterans in America.
Los Angeles Times
10 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Trump's politically motivated sanctions against Brazil strain relations among old allies
SAO PAULO — President Trump has made clear who his new Latin America priority is: former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a personal and political ally. In doing so, he has damaged one of the Western hemisphere's most important and long-standing relationships, by levying 50% tariffs that begin to take effect Wednesday on the largest Latin America economy, sanctioning its main justice and bringing relations between the two countries to the lowest point in decades. The White House has appeared to embrace a narrative pushed by Bolsonaro allies in the U.S., that the former Brazilian president's prosecution for attempting to overturn his 2022 election loss is part of a 'deliberate breakdown in the rule of law,' with the government engaging in 'politically motivated intimidation' and committing 'human rights abuses,' according to Trump's statement announcing the tariffs. The message was clear earlier, when Trump described Bolsonaro's prosecution by Brazil's Supreme Court as a 'witch hunt' — using the same phrase he has employed for the numerous investigations he has faced since his first term. Bolsonaro faces charges of orchestrating a coup attempt to stay in power after losing the 2022 election to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. A conviction could come in the next few months. The U.S. has a long history of meddling with the affairs of Latin American governments, but Trump's latest moves are unprecedented, said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University. 'This is a personalistic government that is adopting policies according to Trump's whims,' Levitsky said. Bolsonaro's sons, he noted, have close connections to Trump's inner circle. The argument has been bolstered by parallels between Bolsonaro's prosecution and the attempted prosecution of Trump for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss, which ended when he won his second term last November. 'He's been convinced Bolsonaro is a kindred spirit suffering a similar witch hunt,' Levitsky said. After Bolsonaro's defeat in 2022, Trump and his supporters echoed his baseless election fraud claims, treating him as a conservative icon and hosting him at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Steve Bannon, the former Trump adviser, recently told Brazil's news website UOL that the U.S. would lift tariffs if Bolsonaro's prosecution were dropped. Meeting that demand, however, is impossible for several reasons. Brazilian officials have consistently emphasized that the judiciary is independent. The executive branch, which manages foreign relations, has no control over Supreme Court justices, who in turn have stated they won't yield to political pressure. On Monday, the court ordered that Bolsonaro be placed under house arrest for violating court orders by spreading messages on social media through his sons' accounts. Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees the case against Bolsonaro, was sanctioned under the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which is supposed to target serious human rights offenders. De Moraes has argued that defendants were granted full due process and said he would ignore the sanctions and continue his work. 'The ask for Lula was undoable,' said Bruna Santos of the Inter-American Dialogue in Washington, D.C., about dropping the charges against Bolsonaro. 'In the long run, you are leaving a scar on the relationship between the two largest democracies in the hemisphere.' Three key factors explain the souring of U.S.-Brazil ties in recent months, said Oliver Stuenkel, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: growing alignment between the far-right in both countries; Brazil's refusal to cave to tariff threats; and the country's lack of lobbying in Washington. Lawmaker Eduardo Bolsonaro, Jair Bolsonaro's third son, has been a central figure linking Brazil's far-right with Trump's MAGA movement. He took a leave from Brazil's Congress and moved to the U.S. in March, but he has long cultivated ties in Trump's orbit. Eduardo openly called for Magnitsky sanctions against de Moraes and publicly thanked Trump after the 50% tariffs were announced in early July. Democratic Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, author of the Magnitsky Act, which allows the U.S. to sanction individual foreign officials who violate human rights, called the administration's actions 'horrible.' 'They make things up to protect someone who says nice things about Donald Trump,' McGovern told The Associated Press. Eduardo Bolsonaro's international campaign began immediately after his father's 2022 loss. Just days after the elections, he met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. As investigations against Bolsonaro and his allies deepened, the Brazilian far right adopted a narrative of judicial persecution and censorship, an echo of Trump and his allies who have claimed the U.S. justice system was weaponized against him. Brazil's Supreme Court and Electoral Court are among the world's strictest regulators of online discourse: they can order social media takedowns and arrests for spreading misinformation or other content it rules 'anti-democratic.' But until recently, few believed Eduardo's efforts to punish Brazil's justices would succeed. That began to change last year when billionaire Elon Musk clashed with de Moraes over censorship on X and threatened to defy court orders by pulling its legal representative from Brazil. In response, de Moraes suspended the social media platform from operating in the country for a month and threatened operations of another Musk company, Starlink. In the end, Musk blinked. Fábio de Sá e Silva, a professor of international and Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma, said Eduardo's influence became evident in May 2024, when he and other right-wing allies secured a hearing before the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee. 'It revealed clear coordination between Bolsonaro supporters and sectors of the U.S. Republican Party,' he said. 'It's a strategy to pressure Brazilian democracy from the outside.' Brazil has a diplomatic tradition of maintaining a low-key presence in Washington, Stuenkel said. That vacuum created an opportunity for Eduardo Bolsonaro to promote a distorted narrative about Brazil among Republicans and those closest to Trump. 'Now Brazil is paying the price,' he said. After Trump announced sweeping tariffs in April, Brazil began negotiations. President Lula and Vice President Geraldo Alckmin — Brazil's lead trade negotiator — said they have held numerous meetings with U.S. trade officials since then. Lula and Trump have never spoken, and the Brazilian president has repeatedly said Washington ignored Brazil's efforts to negotiate ahead of the tariffs' implementation. Privately, diplomats say they felt the decisions were made inside the White House, within Trump's inner circle — a group they had no access to. A delegation of Brazilian senators traveled to Washington in the final week of July in a last-ditch effort to defuse tensions. The group, led by Senator Nelsinho Trad, met with business leaders with ties to Brazil and nine U.S. senators — only one of them Republican, Thom Tillis of North Carolina. 'We found views on Brazil were ideologically charged,' Trad told The AP. 'But we made an effort to present economic arguments.' While the delegation was in Washington, Trump signed the order imposing the 50% tariff. But there was relief: not all Brazilian imports would be hit. Exemptions included civil aircraft and parts, aluminum, tin, wood pulp, energy products and fertilizers. Trad believes Brazil's outreach may have helped soften the final terms. 'I think the path has to remain one of dialogue and reason so we can make progress on other fronts,' he said. Pessoa and Riccardi write for the Associated Press. AP writer Mauricio Savarese in Sao Paulo contributed to this report.
