DOJ files complaint against deportation-blocking Judge Boasberg over his claim Trump is triggering ‘a constitutional crisis’

The DOJ wrote that during a session of the Judicial Conference of the United States on March 11, Boasberg "attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would 'disregard rulings of federal courts' and trigger 'a constitutional crisis.'"

"Although his comments would be inappropriate even if they had some basis, they were even worse because Judge Boasberg had no basis—the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders. Nor did Judge Boasberg identify any purported violations of court orders to justify his unprecedented predictions," the DOJ wrote.

"Within days of those statements, Judge Boasberg began acting on his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would not follow court orders," first by issuing a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from "removing violent Tren de Aragua terrorists, which the Supreme Court summarily vacated." The DOJ said that Boasberg "rushed" the Trump administration through the proceedings, "sometimes giving the Trump Administration less than 48 hours to respond and threatening criminal-contempt proceedings and the appointment of an outside prosecutor against senior Trump Administration officials for failing to comply with an order that had already been vacated."

The DOJ said that Boasberg has violated the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, specifically Canons 1, 2(A), and 3(A)(6).

Canon 1 states, "A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." Canon 2(A) states, "A judge should … act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Canon 3(A)(6) states, "A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court."

"By expressing his view that a particular litigant would violate court orders, Judge Boasberg degraded public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. Litigants expect that every judge will decide matters based on the facts and the law before them, not on preconceived notions that government officials will violate the law."

The DOJ has requested that Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals who oversees judicial disciplinary matters for judges in the circuit, refer the complaint to a special investigative committee to determine whether Boasberg’s conduct constitutes "conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts."

The DOJ has also requested "interim corrective measures during the investigation, including reassignment of all related JGG v Trump cases to another judge to prevent further erosion of public confidence while the investigation proceeds," and to impose "appropriate disciplinary action, including a public reprimand and referral to the Judicial Conference for consideration of impeachment-related recommendations, if the committee finds willful misconduct."

"An independent judiciary depends on both actual and apparent impartiality," the letter concluded. "Judge Boasberg publicly forecasted his baseless predictions of presidential lawlessness, then issued erroneous rulings based on that preconceived notion, which the Supreme Court had to vacate. This sequence meets—at a minimum—the classic definition of failure to 'promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary’ under Canon 2(A). Swift, visible action will reinforce the judiciary’s institutional integrity by showing that judges are held to the same standards they enforce and deter comparable misconduct."

DOJ Judge Boasberg Complaint by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd