One of Judge James Boasberg’s latest rulings smells like judicial activism dressed up as justice. In March, he ordered five deported Venezuelans back to the U.S., accusing President Trump of “possible defiance” despite the migrants already being in El Salvador. This isn’t law—it’s a political jab, one which appears to many to be part of a pattern for the jurist that extends back to the Russia hoax days, as Breitbart reports.
Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, demanded that any plane carrying these migrants return to American soil, a move both theatrical and toothless since the individuals were already gone. His accusation of Trump’s defiance frames the president as the villain, not the unauthorized migrants. It’s a pattern: Boasberg’s rulings consistently tilt against Trump’s agenda.
Appointed by Barak Obama in 2010, Boasberg has a history of favoring progressive causes, from releasing migrants during Trump’s first term to approving warrantless surveillance despite dodgy data collection. His connection to the Russiagate hoax raises eyebrows about his impartiality. The Federalist uncovered a memo revealing Boasberg’s bias, suggesting he views Trump as a constitutional threat while overlooking his overreach.
Boasberg’s role in the Russiagate saga ties him to one of the biggest political hoaxes in recent memory. While presiding over the FISA Court, he let former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith dodge prison time despite Clinesmith’s admission of tampering with evidence. Clinesmith falsely claimed Trump adviser Carter Page was “not a source” for the CIA, fueling unethical surveillance of Trump’s campaign.
Clinesmith’s forgery wasn’t a clerical error -- it extended the FBI’s unlawful spying on Trump’s team. Boasberg’s leniency screams lawfare, blending Trump Derangement Syndrome with judicial cover for Russiagate conspirators. An investigation into this ruling could reveal how the Russia collusion narrative infiltrated the courts.
The ACLU and Soros-linked Democracy Forward pushed the March 2025 lawsuits to block the deportation of five Venezuelans under the Alien Enemies Act. Boasberg’s order to halt their deportation ignored the fact that the Trump administration had already acted. His claim of “possible defiance” feels like a preemptive strike to paint Trump as a lawbreaker.
Boasberg’s judicial track record reads like a progressive wishlist. He once ordered the Trump administration to halt the Dakota Access Pipeline for an environmental review, siding with activist demands over economic priorities. His rulings often champion Democrat causes, raising questions about equal justice under the law.
In Trump’s second term, Boasberg has taken on four high-profile cases, including one accusing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others of violating the Federal Records Act over encrypted messaging apps. His rulings have stalled Trump’s executive actions, suggesting a deliberate effort to undermine a democratically elected president. The sheer volume of Trump-related cases landing on Boasberg’s desk feels less like chance and more like a setup.
Boasberg’s memo, obtained by The Federalist, reveals his predisposition to see Trump as a constitutional crisis waiting to happen. Yet, his actions -- issuing orders beyond his jurisdiction, like demanding planes return from El Salvador—seem to flirt with creating that very crisis. It’s a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.
The term “lawfare” fits Boasberg’s approach like a glove. His rulings don’t just challenge Trump’s policies; they aim to dismantle the MAGA movement’s momentum. By framing Trump as the real criminal, Boasberg flips the script on who’s actually undermining the rule of law.
Boasberg’s order to return deported migrants had no practical effect, as the Venezuelans were already in El Salvador, beyond his jurisdiction. “Any plane containing these folks… needs to be returned,” he declared, as if he could command international airspace. The absurdity of the order underscores its political motive over legal substance.
His history of leniency toward Russiagate figures like Clinesmith only deepens the suspicion of bias. Clinesmith’s evidence tampering prolonged the FBI’s unethical surveillance, yet Boasberg saw no need for prison time. This ruling alone demands a closer look at how far the Russiagate conspiracy infected the judiciary.
Boasberg’s defenders might argue he’s just upholding the law, but his pattern of rulings tells a different story. From migrant releases to surveillance approvals, his decisions consistently align with left-wing priorities. The lack of equal justice under his gavel is hard to ignore.
The Russiagate and lawfare investigations now underway could shine a light on Boasberg’s role in this judicial saga. His actions suggest not just bias but a willingness to stretch judicial power to thwart Trump’s agenda. If anyone’s flirting with a constitutional crisis, it’s not Trump -- it’s Boasberg.
Conservatives watching this unfold see a judiciary weaponized against their values. Boasberg’s rulings, cloaked in legal jargon, seem designed to frustrate a president elected to disrupt the status quo. The fight for fair justice continues, and Boasberg’s record is now under the microscope.
