On July 28, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a formal misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary. This marks the second time since Bondi took office that the DOJ has targeted a federal judge for alleged misconduct, raising questions about judicial impartiality and the administration’s aggressive stance toward the courts.
Background of the Conflict
Judge Boasberg, the chief judge of the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., has been at the center of a high-profile legal battle involving the Trump administration’s deportation policies. In March 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act, a rarely invoked law. He ordered planes carrying these migrants to return to the U.S., citing due process concerns. The Trump administration’s failure to comply with this order led Boasberg to initiate contempt proceedings, accusing the government of “willful disregard” and “obstructionism.”
The DOJ’s complaint, filed by Bondi’s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle and addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, alleges that Boasberg undermined judicial integrity through improper public comments and biased actions. Specifically, the complaint points to remarks Boasberg made at a Judicial Conference on March 11, 2025, where he reportedly warned Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration might “disregard rulings of federal courts” and trigger a “constitutional crisis.” The DOJ argues these comments were baseless, as the administration has complied with all court orders, and that they violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
Details of the Allegations
The complaint highlights two key incidents:
Judicial Conference Remarks: During the March 11 conference, Boasberg allegedly strayed from standard administrative topics to express concerns about the Trump administration’s respect for judicial rulings. The DOJ claims these remarks were inappropriate and lacked evidence, as no specific court order violations were cited.
Handling of the Deportation Case: Days after his conference comments, Boasberg issued a TRO to stop the deportation of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members to El Salvador. The Supreme Court later vacated this order, but the DOJ argues Boasberg acted on a “preconceived belief” that the administration would defy the courts. The complaint also criticizes Boasberg for rushing the government through complex litigation, giving them less than 48 hours to respond in some instances, and threatening criminal contempt proceedings against senior officials.
The DOJ asserts that Boasberg’s actions erode public confidence in the judiciary’s neutrality. They have requested that Chief Judge Srinivasan refer the matter to a special investigative committee to determine if Boasberg’s conduct constitutes “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the courts.” Additionally, the DOJ seeks Boasberg’s removal from the deportation case, J.G.G. v. Trump, and potential disciplinary actions, including a public reprimand or referral to the Judicial Conference for impeachment considerations.
Broader Context
This complaint is the second of its kind under Bondi’s leadership. Earlier in 2025, the DOJ filed a similar complaint against U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes for alleged misconduct in a case challenging Trump’s ban on transgender individuals serving in the military. The pattern suggests a broader strategy by the Trump administration to challenge judges perceived as obstructing its agenda, with President Trump himself labeling Boasberg and others as “activist” judges. In March, Trump called Boasberg “Crooked” and demanded his impeachment, intensifying the public feud.
The deportation case has sparked significant controversy. Boasberg’s March 15 order to stop deportation flights was followed by Supreme Court rulings that found the removals violated migrants’ due process rights. Despite this, the administration has continued to push its immigration policies, leading to dozens of federal court challenges nationwide.
Implications and Next Steps
The complaint now rests with Chief Judge Srinivasan, who will decide whether to dismiss it or refer it to a committee for further investigation. If pursued, the committee could recommend corrective actions, such as reassigning Boasberg’s cases or issuing a formal reprimand. However, removing a federal judge from the bench requires impeachment by Congress, a high bar that demands a two-thirds Senate vote.
The clash between Boasberg and the Trump administration highlights deeper tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch. Critics argue the DOJ’s complaints risk undermining judicial independence, while supporters of the administration view them as necessary to address perceived judicial overreach. As the investigation unfolds, the outcome could set a precedent for how conflicts between federal judges and the executive are resolved, with potential ramifications for public trust in the courts.
For now, the nation watches as this legal drama unfolds, with Judge Boasberg’s conduct and the Trump administration’s response under intense scrutiny.
