Judge dismisses DOJ's Boasberg misconduct complaint, latest in Trump, judge's deportation standoff

The Trump administration, in its ongoing legal battle with Chief Judge James Boasberg, has lost in its attempt to have the courts enforce a judicial misconduct complaint against him.

In a recent decision, Judge Jeffrey Sutton, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, said the department failed to provide "sufficient evidence" about an alleged statement Boasberg made in March 2016 in a closed-door meeting of judges that resulted in the complaint.

The complaint is related to Boasberg's handling of the administration's swift removals of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador and the Alien Enemies Act – which essentially allows a U.S. president to detain, restrain or deport citizens or natives of an enemy nation during a declared war or invasion without requiring court hearings,

It was filed in July 2025 by Chad Mizell, then chief of staff to the U.S. Attorney General, on behalf of the department and alleges Boasberg engaged in judicial misconduct during a March 2025 session of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 

The conference is the federal judiciary’s principal policy-making body, responsible for setting administrative and governance priorities for the courts. Chaired by the chief justice of the United States, the conference is composed of the chief judges of the 13 federal courts of appeals, 12 district court judges selected from each of the regional circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. 

The conference typically meets twice a year, and its deliberations are confidential. Discussions generally focus on court administration, budgeting and long-term policy issues affecting the federal judiciary.

The complaint alleged Boasberg, of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, crossed ethical lines during one such meeting by making politically charged remarks. 

Specifically, the complaint accused him of attempting to “improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges” by asserting the Trump administration would "disregard rulings of federal courts” and provoke a “constitutional crisis.” 

The department took the position that Boasberg’s comments would have been improper “even if they had some basis.” DOJ went further, however, asserting that the remarks were especially troubling because Boasberg "has no basis – the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders.” 

In DOJ’s view, the comments reflected an unfounded assumption about the administration’s respect for judicial authority.

According to DOJ, those remarks were not merely abstract or speculative but were followed almost immediately by judicial action that appeared to reflect the same preconceived belief. 

Within days of the conference meeting, DOJ stated, Boasberg “began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders” when he issued a temporary restraining order barring the government from removing alleged members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, under immigration authorities.

Taken together, DOJ argued, Boasberg’s comments at the conference and his subsequent actions in related litigation violated multiple provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. 

DOJ cited Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(6), which require judges to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary, to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality, and to avoid public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. DOJ further contended that Boasberg’s remarks eroded public confidence in judicial neutrality and justified a formal ethics investigation.

Boasberg’s Role in Alien Enemies Act Case

The underlying litigation involved a lawsuit filed by detained individuals allegedly affiliated with Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization. The detainees sued the Trump administration to block their removal to a third country under the Alien Enemies Act. The case was filed and randomly assigned to Boasberg on March 15, 2025.

That same day, Boasberg issued temporary restraining orders barring the government from removing the named plaintiffs and other detainees included in a preliminarily certified class.

The administration immediately sought emergency relief. On March 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to stay Boasberg’s orders. Two days later, Boasberg extended the restraining orders for an additional 14 days. On April 7, the Supreme Court vacated the orders.  

Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention, Boasberg ruled on April 16 that “probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt” for allegedly failing to comply with his March 15 orders. The government appealed, asking the D.C. Circuit to terminate the contempt proceedings. The appellate court later vacated Boasberg’s probable-cause finding.

Months later, on November 24, Boasberg initiated a new contempt proceeding arising out of the same dispute. The D.C. Circuit again intervened and issued a stay of the proceedings.

Chief Judge Sutton Writes Opinion Dismissing Complaint

The Justice Department directed its misconduct complaint to Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. But due to potential conflicts among judges in D.C., Chief Justice John Roberts transferred the complaint to the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit’s Judicial Council.

In a seven-page memorandum opinion dated December 19, Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, dismissed the complaint.

Sutton wrote that the allegation concerning an alleged March 11 comment by Boasberg was unsupported by “sufficient evidence.” The opinion noted that the complaint failed to identify the source of the remark or provide basic details, including what was said, when it was said, whether it was made in response to a question, whether it occurred during a judicial conference or another meeting, and whether Boasberg was expressing his own views or relaying concerns raised by other judges.

The department identified only one purported piece of evidence – an “Attachment A” – but no such attachment was included with the complaint. When the D.C. Circuit later contacted DOJ to request the missing document, the department did not provide it, Sutton wrote.

Sutton further explained that even if the alleged comment had been made, it would not be “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and would not constitute prohibited “public comment” under Canon 3(A)(6). Sutton emphasized that the alleged remark did not reference any specific case, and the Alien Enemies Act litigation was not filed until four days later.

The Circuit Judicial Councils have discretion to withhold certain opinions and/or anonymize them, and that decision-making process causes some delay.

Trump Allies Press for Impeachment

The ethics dismissal comes just weeks after House Speaker Mike Johnson (R–La.) publicly endorsed impeachment proceedings against Boasberg. When asked about the prospect during a press conference, Johnson was blunt: “I’m for it.”

Johnson acknowledged that impeachment is an extraordinary step but argued that the circumstances warrant it. 

“Extreme times call for extreme measures,” he said, adding that some judges have strayed so far beyond their proper role that Congress may need to “lay down law” and “make an example of some of these egregious abuses.”

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican and chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Courts and Oversight, echoed that view in a letter urging House leaders to immediately advance pending articles of impeachment against Boasberg and Judge Boardman, another federal judge who conservatives have accused of judicial misconduct. 

“To fail to act would teach future judges that ideology excuses lawlessness and that ‘good Behaviour’ is an empty phrase,” Cruz wrote. “To act would reaffirm that judicial independence exists to protect the rule of law – not to shield those who defy it.”

Cruz’s letter was sent the same day that Senate Republicans convened a hearing aimed at pressuring the House to move forward with impeachment proceedings against what they describe as “activist judges,” including Boasberg.

While the Justice Department’s ethics complaint has been dismissed, the political and constitutional fight surrounding Boasberg’s conduct is far from over. There remains the possibility that accountability efforts may shift from the judiciary’s internal processes to Congress.