A federal appeals court judge has dismissed a misconduct complaint filed by the Justice Department against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who notably clashed with President Donald Trump's administration over deportations to a controversial prison in El Salvador. The dismissal on December 19 by Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals surfaced this weekend, focusing on comments Boasberg allegedly made during a judicial conference. These comments suggested that the Trump administration might provoke a constitutional crisis by ignoring federal court rulings.
The origin of the complaint traces back to remarks made in March 2025, just days before Boasberg blocked deportation flights forced by the administration's wartime authorities from an 18th-century law. However, Sutton found the Justice Department's evidence lacking, emphasizing that mere allegations without corroborating sources are insufficient for a valid misconduct complaint. He stated, A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them.
Sutton's dismissal brought clarity to the delicate balance of judicial commentary and ethics. Even had Boasberg made the statements, they would not have strayed too far from acceptable judicial discourse, as Chief Justice John Roberts had previously acknowledged concerns over threats to judicial independence.
The misconduct complaint was originally directed to Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who subsequently transferred it to the 6th Circuit. This legal battle not only reflects on Boasberg's conduct but also accentuates ongoing tensions regarding the independence and role of the judiciary in contemporary political dynamics.
The origin of the complaint traces back to remarks made in March 2025, just days before Boasberg blocked deportation flights forced by the administration's wartime authorities from an 18th-century law. However, Sutton found the Justice Department's evidence lacking, emphasizing that mere allegations without corroborating sources are insufficient for a valid misconduct complaint. He stated, A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them.
Sutton's dismissal brought clarity to the delicate balance of judicial commentary and ethics. Even had Boasberg made the statements, they would not have strayed too far from acceptable judicial discourse, as Chief Justice John Roberts had previously acknowledged concerns over threats to judicial independence.
The misconduct complaint was originally directed to Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, who subsequently transferred it to the 6th Circuit. This legal battle not only reflects on Boasberg's conduct but also accentuates ongoing tensions regarding the independence and role of the judiciary in contemporary political dynamics.
