Judiciary
Bondi information ethics grievance in opposition to federal choose who reportedly expressed concern about ‘constitutional disaster’
July 29, 2025, 12:57 pm CDT
Chief U.S. District Choose James E. Boasberg of the District of Columbia stands for a portrait at E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on March 16, 2023. (Photograph by Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Submit through Getty Pictures)
The U.S. Division of Justice has filed a misconduct grievance in opposition to Chief U.S. District Choose James E. Boasberg of Washington, D.C., stated U.S. Legal professional Basic Pam Bondi in a put up Monday on X, previously often called Twitter.
The grievance alleges that Boasberg made improper feedback at a March 11 assembly of the U.S. Judicial Convention when he expressed his perception that the Trump administration would “disregard rulings of federal courts” and set off “a constitutional disaster.”
Boasberg allegedly made the feedback to Chief Justice John Roberts and different federal judges on the convention.
Boasberg “tried to remodel a routine housekeeping agenda right into a discussion board to steer the chief justice and different federal judges of his preconceived perception that the Trump administration would violate courtroom orders,” the grievance stated.
“Though his feedback could be inappropriate even when they’d some foundation,” the grievance stated, “they had been even worse as a result of Choose Boasberg had no foundation—the Trump administration has all the time complied with all courtroom orders.”
Publications masking the grievance embody Fox Information, Reuters, Courthouse Information Service, Legislation.com, Politico and the New York Instances.
Boasberg dominated April 16 that there’s possible trigger to search out the federal government in felony contempt for willfully disobeying his March 15 momentary restraining order stopping the switch of Venezuelan immigrants from america into overseas custody.
The federal authorities transferred the deportees to a jail in El Salvador in Central America hours after he issued an injunction, Boasberg stated in his April order.
Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, although the Supreme Court docket dominated April 7 that the case had been filed within the incorrect venue. The Supreme Court docket stated the immigrants may solely problem their deportation below the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 via a habeas motion, which should be introduced within the district wherein they’re confined.
Boasberg stated the Supreme Court docket’s choice “doesn’t excuse the federal government’s violation.” The U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit paused the contempt proceedings in April, based on the New York Instances.
The misconduct grievance stated all through the litigation involving the Venezuelans, who’re “violent Tren de Aragua terrorists,” Boasberg “rushed the federal government via advanced litigation.” At instances, he gave the Trump administration lower than 48 hours to reply, the grievance stated.
Boasberg’s remarks to the Judicial Convention undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the grievance asserted.
“Litigants count on that each choose will resolve issues primarily based on the details and the legislation earlier than them, not on preconceived notions that authorities officers will violate the legislation,” based on the grievance.
The grievance was filed with Chief Choose Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit. It seeks an investigation by a particular committee and reassignment of the deportation litigation to a different choose.
The grievance additionally seeks “acceptable disciplinary motion,” together with a public reprimand, if the ethics grievance is substantiated, in addition to a referral to the Judicial Convention “for consideration of impeachment-related suggestions” if willful misconduct is discovered.
See additionally:
Write a letter to the editor, share a narrative tip or replace, or report an error.
