A federal appeals court has decisively rejected a judicial misconduct complaint filed by the Justice Department against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. The dismissal marks a significant legal defeat for the Trump administration's efforts to discipline federal judges who have ruled against its immigration policies.
Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued the order, finding that the Justice Department failed to provide any credible evidence to support its serious allegations. Sutton noted in his decision that the complaint relied entirely on unverified claims without identifying a single source who actually witnessed the alleged misconduct.
The complaint was originally filed in July by Chad Mizelle, a top aide to Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing Judge Boasberg of exhibiting political bias against the president. It alleged that the judge made improper remarks during a private judicial conference in March regarding the administration's willingness to respect federal court orders.
According to the Justice Department's filing, Boasberg supposedly warned his colleagues that the executive branch might ignore judicial rulings and subsequently trigger a constitutional crisis. However, when the appeals court formally requested proof or a witness to confirm these comments were ever made, the department failed to produce any substantiating material.
The friction between the administration and Judge Boasberg stems largely from his handling of sensitive and high-profile immigration cases in the District of Columbia. Boasberg had previously issued rulings that blocked the administration's summary removal of Venezuelan migrants to prisons located in El Salvador.
These rulings directly challenged the administration's controversial use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations without providing standard due process hearings. The Justice Department viewed these legal roadblocks as an overreach of judicial authority and sought to have Boasberg removed from the case through the misconduct process.
Chief Justice John Roberts had transferred the complaint to the Sixth Circuit to ensure an impartial review, purposefully avoiding any potential conflicts of interest within the D.C. Circuit. This procedural safeguard ultimately led to an independent assessment that found the accusations against the judge to be entirely meritless.
In his written decision, Judge Sutton emphasized that repeating uncorroborated statements does not transform them into actionable facts for a judicial inquiry. He stated firmly that a complaint must offer more than "unadorned allegations" to warrant a formal investigation into a sitting federal judge.
The dismissal serves as a strong affirmation of judicial independence in the face of increasing political pressure from the executive branch. It effectively closes the inquiry into Judge Boasberg, allowing him to continue presiding over high-profile cases without the lingering shadow of an ethics investigation.