A leaked memorandum from a March Judicial Conference meeting reveals a troubling predisposition among D.C. District Court judges against the Trump administration, as The Federalist reports. Chief Judge James Boasberg warned Chief Justice John Roberts and fellow judges of a potential constitutional crisis, alleging the administration might ignore federal court rulings. This claim, despite the administration’s consistent compliance with court orders, raises serious questions about judicial impartiality.
The memo, obtained exclusively by The Federalist, details discussions at the Judicial Conference held in Washington, D.C., during the week of March 11. This gathering, a biannual event for the federal judiciary’s policymaking body, included about 30 judges, such as Chief Justice Roberts and representatives from each judicial circuit. Boasberg’s concerns, aired during a working breakfast, painted the Trump administration as a threat to the rule of law.
Boasberg’s assertion that the administration would disregard court orders lacks evidence, as the Trump administration had complied with all judicial mandates at the time. His warning of a constitutional crisis seems more like fearmongering than a reasoned prediction. It’s a curious stance, given the judiciary’s obligation to presume public officials act lawfully, a principle known as the presumption of regularity.
The presumption of regularity, a cornerstone of judicial fairness, requires courts to assume officials discharge their duties properly. D.C. judges, led by Boasberg, appear to have sidestepped this principle, assuming the worst of the Trump administration without cause. This predisposition suggests a bias that undermines the judiciary’s claim to neutrality.
Days after the conference, Boasberg issued an order in a case where he lacked jurisdiction, demanding that the Trump administration halt removals to El Salvador. The Supreme Court later confirmed his lack of authority, exposing his overreach. Yet, Boasberg doubled down, finding the administration in criminal contempt for not reversing planes or returning gang members, despite no explicit requirement in his injunction.
The contempt ruling reeks of judicial activism, punishing the administration for failing to meet unwritten expectations. Boasberg’s actions align with the memo’s revealed bias, suggesting a pattern of targeting the Trump administration. It’s a move that smells more of politics than justice.
A whistleblower recently accused Emil Bove, Trump’s nominee for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, of advising the Department of Justice to ignore court orders. Bove, then a principal associate deputy attorney general, represented the administration before Boasberg. The allegation aimed to tarnish Bove’s nomination but crumbled under scrutiny.
An email obtained by The Federalist on Friday disproved the whistleblower’s claim. Bove had advised the legal team to avoid a court order halting an upcoming operation, not to defy judicial mandates. Sen. Chuck Grassley, Judiciary Committee chair, noted this advice aligned with Bove’s sworn testimony and was not an instruction to break the law.
Bove himself testified under oath, stating, “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.” His words stand in stark contrast to the whistleblower’s narrative, which seems designed to inflame rather than inform. Grassley’s support underscores the flimsiness of the accusation, revealing it as another attempt to smear a Trump ally.
During the working breakfast, Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that no constitutional crisis would materialize. He noted his interactions with the president were “civil and respectful,” citing Trump thanking him for administering the oath at the State of the Union. Roberts’ calm demeanor contrasts sharply with Boasberg’s alarmist rhetoric.
Roberts’ response highlights a judiciary ideally focused on facts, not speculation. Yet Boasberg’s concerns, amplified by the memo, suggest a clique of D.C. judges more interested in narrative than evidence. Their readiness to assume the administration’s bad faith exposes a troubling double standard.
Justice Samuel Alito, speaking a month after the conference, reminded both branches of their duty, stating, “Both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.” His words serve as a rebuke to judges who prejudge the administration’s actions. The judiciary should uphold impartiality, not fuel partisan suspicions.
Despite Boasberg’s fears, recently released emails confirm the Trump administration’s intent to obey all court orders, even those deemed unlawful. This compliance undercuts the narrative of a rogue executive branch. The judiciary’s failure to acknowledge this fact speaks volumes about its agenda.
The Judicial Conference, meant to address administrative and policy issues, became a platform for airing anti-Trump anxieties. With about 30 judges present, including the chief judge of each circuit, the meeting’s influence on judicial policy is significant. Boasberg’s remarks risk tainting the federal judiciary’s reputation for fairness.
This leaked memo exposes a judiciary teetering on the edge of partisanship. D.C. judges’ predisposition against the Trump administration, despite its adherence to court orders, demands accountability. The public deserves a judiciary that judges cases, not characters.
