Attorney General Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is aiming at federal judge accused of letting his bias against President Donald Trump cloud his judicial impartiality.
The DOJ, led by Bondi, filed a complaint on accusing U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg of misconduct for public comments that allegedly undermine judicial integrity, as Fox News reports. The complaint, penned by Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, demands an investigation and Boasberg’s removal from a deportation case involving Venezuelan migrants. It’s a bold move to check a judge who seems to think he’s above the law.
Boasberg, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, presided over J.G.G. v Trump, a case tied to the deportation of migrants to El Salvador. The Trump administration has faced relentless judicial pushback, with Boasberg among those accused of obstructing executive orders. His critics argue he’s less a neutral arbiter than a roadblock to policy.
At a Judicial Conference earlier this year, Boasberg voiced fears that the Trump administration might ignore federal court rulings, potentially sparking a constitutional crisis. He aired these concerns to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and roughly two dozen federal judges. The DOJ swiftly countered that Boasberg’s claims were baseless, noting the administration’s full compliance with court orders.
“Judge Boasberg’s words and deeds violate Canons of the Code of Conduct,” Mizelle wrote in the complaint. Such rhetoric, the DOJ argues, erodes public trust in a judiciary already teetering under accusations of activism. Boasberg’s comments seem less like judicial caution and more like a public jab at a president he dislikes.
The complaint marks the DOJ’s second salvo against a federal judge this year, following a February filing against Judge Ana Reyes in a case challenging Trump’s ban on transgender military service. The pattern suggests a broader effort to rein in judges who overstep their roles. Bondi’s team isn’t playing games with what they see as runaway judicial overreach.
Boasberg’s temporary restraining order on March 15 aimed to halt the deportation of violent Tren de Aragua terrorists to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act. He even ordered planes bound for El Salvador to turn back, a directive the Trump administration didn’t follow. The Supreme Court later vacated Boasberg’s order, citing due process violations for the 252 migrants sent to Venezuela via El Salvador.
Trump administration officials didn’t mince words, blasting Boasberg for overstepping and questioning his attempts to monitor their compliance. President Trump himself floated impeachment as a remedy earlier in 2025. Chief Justice Roberts issued a rare warning in response, signaling the escalating judicial-political clash.
In April, Boasberg doubled down, ruling there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in contempt for ignoring his March 15 order. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals quickly stayed that motion, leaving the issue unresolved. Boasberg’s persistence smells more of agenda-driven governance than impartial justice.
The DOJ’s complaint, addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, calls for a special investigative committee to probe Boasberg’s conduct. It specifically requests his removal from the J.G.G. v Trump case to restore public confidence in the judiciary. Letting a judge with apparent bias steer a high-stakes case is a recipe for distrust.
Boasberg’s defenders, including ACLU lawyers, have pushed back, recently asking him to reopen discovery in the deportation case based on a United Nations report about migrant custody in El Salvador. Their move suggests they’re banking on Boasberg’s sympathy to keep the case alive. It’s a tactic that only fuels suspicions of judicial favoritism.
During a status hearing, DOJ lawyer Tiberius Davis sharply responded to Boasberg’s question about compliance, saying they’d follow “lawful” orders. That qualifier didn’t sit well with Boasberg, who seems to expect blind obedience rather than reasoned pushback. Davis’s retort underscores the tension between a judiciary demanding deference and an administration demanding accountability.
The DOJ argues that Boasberg’s actions breach the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which demands impartiality and restraint. Publicly predicting a constitutional crisis over unproven fears isn’t just reckless -- it’s a direct hit to the judiciary’s credibility. Boasberg’s behavior suggests a judge more interested in headlines than fairness.
Trump has repeatedly called out “activist” judges like Boasberg for obstructing his agenda, from deportation policies to military service rules. The administration’s frustration is palpable, as courts nationwide have challenged its moves with mixed success. Boasberg’s case is just one flashpoint in a broader battle over judicial overreach.
Bondi’s DOJ isn’t backing down, framing Boasberg’s removal as essential to preserving public trust. With the judiciary under fire for perceived bias, this complaint signals a push to restore balance. It’s a fight worth watching, as it pits constitutional duty against what many see as progressive judicial overreach.
