Latest news with #JamesBoasberg
CBS News
a day ago
- Politics
- CBS News
The Trump administration's misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg and what happens now
The Trump administration filed a complaint Monday against Judge James Boasberg, an unusual move that follows clashes in court between the D.C.-based federal judge and the government over President Trump's deportation policies. It's rare for the Justice Department to formally accuse judges of misconduct. The move will kick off a long, complex review process — though some legal experts say the Trump administration could have a difficult time demonstrating that Boasberg violated judicial rules. The complaint accuses Boasberg of "making improper public comments" about Mr. Trump, and criticizes the judge's rulings in a high-profile case involving Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador, according to a copy obtained by CBS News. Much of the complaint focuses on a March session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, a panel of federal judges led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts that weighs in on how the judicial branch is run. The Justice Department accused Boasberg of speaking up during one part of the biannual meeting to warn that the Trump administration could "disregard rulings of federal courts," leading to a "constitutional crisis." The source of those quotes is unclear, but they were first reported earlier this month by The Federalist, a conservative digital outlet that says it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting. CBS News has reached out to the Justice Department for further details. Those comments, the government argues, violated rules requiring judges to avoid publicly comment on cases and to "act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." The complaint also takes issue with Boasberg's handling of Venezuelan migrants who were rapidly flown to a Salvadoran prison under the wartime Alien Enemies Act in mid-March, less than a week after the Judicial Conference meeting. Boasberg verbally ordered the government to return the migrants to the U.S., even if officials needed to "turn the planes around," but the deportees were still sent to El Salvador. Since then, the judge has accused the administration of defying his orders, and has threatened to hold the government in contempt. The Justice Department argued Monday that Boasberg "rushed the government through complex litigation, sometimes giving the Trump Administration less than 48 hours to respond." "Judge Boasberg publicly forecasted his baseless predictions of presidential lawlessness, then issued erroneous rulings based on that preconceived notion," says the complaint, which was signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi's chief of staff, Chad Mizelle. In April, the Supreme Court halted a ruling by Boasberg blocking deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, deciding the lawsuit should have been brought in Texas, not Washington, D.C. Several legal experts told CBS News the complaint could face a tough path. Federal law defines judicial misconduct as "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts." That covers everything from harassment to making partisan statements and treating people in a "demonstrably egregious and hostile manner." Several law professors say that the parts of Monday's complaint that focus on Boasberg's handling of the deportation case are misdirected. In general, if a party in a federal case has issues with how a judge has ruled, they're expected to file an appeal — not a complaint against a judge — said Jeffrey Bellin, a law professor at Vanderbilt University who has served as a judicial ethics investigator. "You're not supposed to use the misconduct process to complain about the judge's behavior in the case that you're involved in," Bellin told CBS News. The parts of the complaint that criticize Boasberg for warning the Trump administration may defy court orders are less straightforward, says Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor. The government accused the Obama-appointed judge of violating a section of the code of conduct for federal judges that says they "should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court." Geyh said that in some circumstances, Boasberg's comments could be "a potential problem." But he still doesn't believe Boasberg deserves disciplinary action. He said courts have been "overwhelmed" by Trump-era executive actions, "many of which are of dubious constitutionality," and need to figure out how to preserve their legitimacy and ensure their rulings are followed. "They need to talk about it somehow," said Geyh. Also, while public comments about cases aren't allowed, if Boasberg's remarks were made in a session of the normally private Judicial Conference, "you could make a pretty good argument, I think, that that is something different," Geyh said. Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said remarks at Judicial Conference meetings typically aren't meant for public consumption. She also argued Boasberg's alleged comments about the risk of the Trump administration skirting court orders are based on "very real concerns." "This is not a novel issue being raised by one particular judge about, 'what if the administration doesn't comply,'" said Levenson. It's a complicated process that can take months. When a complaint is filed, the first step is usually for the region's chief appellate court judge — in this case, Judge Sri Srinivasin of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — to review the issue and decide how to proceed. In the vast majority of situations, the misconduct complaint is dismissed at that stage, Geyh said, noting that many complaints are from "disgruntled litigants who don't like how their case went, and so they kvetch about what went on in their case." The appeals court judge can also privately take corrective action before the issue escalates. For example, they can encourage the judge to admit their mistake, said Geyh. If the appellate judge decides a complaint has merit, they can refer it to a special committee of judges to conduct an investigation and make recommendations. Then, the region's judicial council — yet another committee of judges — decides whether to punish them. "The quickest thing is if they dismiss it," Bellin said. "If they don't dismiss it … we won't hear about it for a while." First off, district court judges can't be fired — unless they're impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate, which requires two-thirds of senators to vote in favor. "It's very hard to discipline a sitting federal judge because they have life tenure," said Bellin. Short of that, a judge found to have engaged in misconduct can be publicly censured or reprimanded, or barred from taking on any new cases. The judicial conference can also choose to refer a judge to Congress for impeachment proceedings. They're not unheard of, though punishments are rare. Last year, Boston-based U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor was the subject of a misconduct complaint after he criticized Supreme Court Justice Alito in a New York Times op-ed. An appellate judge didn't take further action because Ponsor apologized. Bellin said it's "pretty common" for parties in cases to file complaints about judges, but "these are not usually done by people who are professional litigators." Instead, most attorneys just work their issues with judges into their appeals. It's especially unusual for the Justice Department to file complaints. "You just don't have a history of the Justice Department having an acrimonious relationship with the judiciary," said Geyh. "Historically, it's just a dumb thing to do. You want an amicable relationship with the judges who are going to be deciding your cases. You don't want to be suing them. You don't want to be filing complaints against them." Still, Mr. Trump has been more openly critical of judges than his predecessors. Besides Boasberg, the Trump administration filed a misconduct complaint in February against D.C. District Judge Ana Reyes, accusing her of "hostile and egregious misconduct" during a hearing. The D.C. appeals court has not addressed the complaint. The administration also sued every judge in Maryland over a standing order in that court district blocking the immediate deportation of migrants challenging their removal. Meanwhile, Mr. Trump and his staff have lashed out at judges who have ruled against the government. The president has called for Boasberg to be impeached. "It strikes me as a bit of posturing, as an aggressive pushback by the administration against the federal judges," Levenson said of the complaint against Boasberg. "I think it's a real uphill battle for the administration, but the mere filing of the complaint is sort of the shot across the bow."Jacob Rosen contributed to this report.
Fox News
a day ago
- Politics
- Fox News
What to know about Judge Boasberg, the Trump foe at center of DOJ complaint
The Justice Department on Monday accused U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of misconduct, escalating the Trump administration's long-running feud against federal judges who have blocked or paused some of the president's most sweeping policy priorities. The complaint, reviewed by Fox News Digital, centers on remarks Boasberg allegedly made during a March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States — the national policymaking body for the federal courts, which meets twice per year and is headed up by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. During that meeting, the complaint says, Boasberg "attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts" and the roughly two dozen other federal judges at the conference by suggesting that the Trump administration could "disregard rulings of federal courts," and trigger "a constitutional crisis." The complaint was sent at the direction of U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and signed by her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle. Fox News Digital could not independently verify Boasberg's reported remarks at the March 11 meeting, and his office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Officials have argued the reported remarks were an attempt to improperly prejudice or influence Roberts and said they "undermined the integrity and impartiality of the federal judiciary." The complaint asked, not for the first time, that Boasberg be removed from presiding over J.G.G. v. Trump, a lawsuit filed in March by lawyers for the ACLU and others on behalf of the hundreds of immigrants who were summarily deported to El Salvador's CECOT prison under the auspices of a wartime immigration law. The complaint — and its request to remove Boasberg from the most consequential immigration case of President Donald Trump's second term — is certain to test the already fraught relationship between the administration and the courts. Since Trump's inauguration in January, senior administration officials have excoriated dozens of so-called "activist" judges who have blocked or paused some of Trump's sweeping executive orders from taking force. Notably, the pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller attempted to sue Roberts earlier this year for his role overseeing the U.S. Judicial Conference, arguing in a long-shot legal bid that the group's actions went beyond the scope of what they allege are the "core functions" of the judiciary. Boasberg, in particular, has emerged as one of Trump's biggest public foes. On March 15, several days after he allegedly made the remarks included in the DOJ complaint, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order seeking to block Trump's use of a 1798 wartime-era immigration law, the Alien Enemies Act, to summarily deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. Boasberg ordered all planes bound for El Salvador to be "immediately" returned to U.S. soil, which did not happen, and later, ordered a new investigation to determine whether the Trump administration had complied with his orders. In April, he ruled that the court had grounds to move on possible contempt proceedings, though that ruling was stayed by a higher appeals court, which has yet to consider the matter. His March 15 order touched off a complex legal saga that ultimately spawned dozens of deportation-related court challenges across the country — though the one brought before Boasberg was the very first — and later prompted the Supreme Court to rule, on two separate occasions, that the hurried removals had violated migrants' due process protections under the U.S. Constitution. However, it also placed Boasberg squarely in the crosshairs of Trump officials — including the president — as the administration moved to unleash a blitz of executive orders and target judges who tried to block them. Their attacks have centered closely on the behavior of several judges — but no one more so than Boasberg, an Obama appointee who was originally tapped by then-President George W. Bush in 2002 to be an associate judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has repeatedly used her podium this year to rail against "radical left-wing judges," accusing them of overstepping their authority and undermining presidential powers. Trump suggested earlier this year that Boasberg could be impeached for his actions, describing the judge as a "troublemaker and agitator"— and prompting a rare public rebuke from Justice Roberts. For some, the complaint seems to be well-timed: Boasberg ordered the Justice Department and the ACLU to court for a status hearing last week to determine the status of the 252 CECOT plaintiffs who were deported to Venezuela from El Salvador as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. Boasberg ended the hearing by ordering the administration and the ACLU lawyers to submit a joint status update to the court on Thursday, Aug. 7, and to continue to do so every two weeks thereafter, as he weighs what options the court has to order relief. When asked at a status hearing in court last week whether the Justice Department would comply with the court's orders, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis said they would, "if it was a lawful order." Davis added that DOJ would likely seek an appeal from a higher court. Notably, it's not the first time the Trump administration has tried to have Boasberg removed from overseeing the case. The Justice Department in March asked the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to remove Judge Boasberg from presiding over the Alien Enemies Act case and have it reassigned to another federal judge. The appeals court never took action in response to the request. The White House has repeatedly argued that lower court judges like Boasberg should not have the power to block what it calls the president's lawful agenda — though the judges say Trump's actions violate the law. Still, the first six months of Trump's second term have been marked by repeated court clashes, as the administration pushes ahead with its agenda and targets those standing in its way. That sentiment was echoed by former acting ICE Director and current border czar Tom Homan. 'I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks," he said earlier this year in an interview. "We're coming. Another fight. Every day."
Newsweek
2 days ago
- Politics
- Newsweek
Explained: The Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Boasberg
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a formal misconduct complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, a prominent federal judge in Washington, D.C., accusing him of violating judicial ethics by making improper public remarks about President Donald Trump and his administration. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the move on July 28. Newsweek contacted the DOJ for comment by email outside regular working hours. Why It Matters Boasberg is presiding over Martínez v. Mayorkas, a high-profile case brought by a group of Venezuelan asylum-seekers who allege that their transfer to a Salvadoran detention facility on March 15 violated federal law and international human rights norms. The DOJ filed its complaint days after Boasberg said he was considering disciplinary proceedings against government lawyers for their conduct in that case, Reuters reported. The move raises questions about potential retaliation and the separation of powers between the judiciary and executive branch. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, at an American Board Association panel discussion at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, D.C., on April 2. AFP via Getty Images/Drew Angerer What To Know What Is a Judicial Misconduct Complaint? A judicial misconduct complaint is a formal allegation filed against a sitting federal judge claiming behavior that violates the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. These complaints are reviewed by the appropriate judicial council—in this case, likely the D.C. Circuit—and may lead to disciplinary actions, including reprimand, censure or even referral for impeachment in severe cases. However, most complaints are dismissed or resolved confidentially unless clear evidence of serious misconduct emerges. What Boasberg Said That Sparked the Complaint The DOJ complaint cites comments Boasberg made at the Judicial Conference in March, where he expressed concern that the Trump administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts" and trigger "a constitutional crisis." According to the complaint, Boasberg's words and conduct "erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation under Rule 11," which stipulates how a chief judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals should respond when a judicial misconduct or disability complaint is filed. The department said the judge's remarks undermined the appearance of judicial neutrality and breached ethical standards requiring judges to avoid political commentary. What the Complaint Against Boasberg Says According to the court document obtained by Newsweek, the DOJ has accused Boasberg of violating Canon 1, Canon 2(A) and Canon 3(A)(6) of the judicial code, which prohibit judges from making "public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court" and require them to maintain impartiality and "uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." The complaint further said Boasberg's conduct had called into question the integrity of pending proceedings and eroded public confidence in the judiciary's ability to fairly adjudicate matters involving the executive branch. What People are Saying Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X on Monday: "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." What Happens Next The complaint signals a sharp escalation in the broader institutional conflict between Trump's Justice Department and federal courts handling cases related to his administration's policies.
Forbes
2 days ago
- Politics
- Forbes
DOJ Files Complaint Against Judge Boasberg—Whose Deportation Rulings Angered Trump
The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against federal judge James Boasberg, who has previously been a target of Trump's ire over his rulings on deportation matters. James Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, attends a panel ... More discussion at the annual American Board Association (ABA) Spring Antitrust Meeting at the Marriott Marquis in Washington, DC. AFP via Getty Images Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the move in a post on X on Monday night, saying she has directed the DOJ to file the complaint against the chief judge of the U.S. federal court for the District of Columbia 'for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration.' The complaint letter signed by Bondi's chief of staff was sent to the U.S. Circuit of Court of Appeals in Washington, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan. According to a copy of the letter published by Politico, the DOJ alleges that Boasberg made 'improper public comments' at a closed-doors judicial conference in March and tried to 'improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges.' The complaint claims that during the event, Boasberg strayed from 'traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis.'' The letter said the 'comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis' before alleging that they had no basis, as the Trump administration has 'always complied with all court orders.' The complaint notes that after making these alleged comments, Boasberg blocked the administration from deporting hundreds of Venezuelan immigrants to a prison in El Salvador, which Mizelle's letter claims the judge 'lacked authority to do.' In her X post, Bondi claimed Boasberg's alleged comments 'have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that.' In March, Boasberg blocked Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport hundreds of Venezuelan nationals, who the administration alleged were members of the criminal organization Tren de Aragua. As some deportations still moved forward despite the order, Boasberg later ruled that the Trump administration likely committed criminal contempt. The Supreme Court eventually overturned Boasberg's ruling blocking Trump's use of the wartime act in April. What Has Trump And His Allies Said About Boasberg? Boasberg's efforts to block the deportation drew outrage both from Trump and his allies. In a post on his Truth Social platform back in March, Trump attacked Boasberg, calling him a 'radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.' The president then insisted that Boasberg should be 'IMPEACHED.' Billionaire Elon Musk, then a close ally of Trump, also attacked Boasberg's rulings, tweeting: 'This is a judicial coup. We need 60 senators to impeach the judges and restore rule of the people.' Trump admin escalates its war with the courts — this time targeting Judge Boasberg (Politico) Chief Justice John Roberts Rebukes Trump's Call To Impeach Judge Overseeing Deportation Case (Forbes)
Epoch Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Epoch Times
DOJ Files Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Handling Key Deportations Case
The Department of Justice (DOJ) on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, the judge presiding over a case against the Trump administration's deportation of Venezuelan illegal immigrants to El Salvador in March. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated on X. that she had directed the DOJ to file the complaint against Boasberg, alleging 'improper public comments' made against President Donald Trump and his administration.
