Justice Department files formal complaint against Judge Boasberg
Boasberg has long faced the ire of President Trump, who at one point called for Boasberg's impeachment over his handling of the case. But Monday's letter escalates tensions with Trump's Justice Department, which newly demands Boasberg be investigated and referred for appropriate discipline.
'Judge Boasberg's actions have harmed the integrity and public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary,' Justice Department Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle wrote in the five-page complaint, which was obtained by The Hill.
The complaint centers on comments Boasberg reportedly made to fellow judges at a March 11 meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's policymaking arm.
The Federalist, a conservative outlet, earlier this month reported that Boasberg said he was concerned 'that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.'
The Justice Department's new complaint alleges Boasberg, an appointee of former President Obama, violated ethical obligations to promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and refrain from public comments about matters pending in any court.
'These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,' Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X.
The complaint was sent to Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Federal law provides that Srinivasan can dismiss the complaint, find that appropriate corrective action has been taken or appoint a committee to pursue further reprimand.
The Hill has requested comment from Boasberg through a court spokesperson.
Boasberg has faced intense backlash from Trump's allies for his handling of a challenge to the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, which Trump first invoked in mid-March to swiftly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador.
Days after the Judicial Conference meeting, the judge was assigned the case and swiftly ordered any airborne flights to turn around. The Supreme Court later lifted the ruling, saying the migrants had sued in the wrong venue.
Boasberg has since accused the Trump administration of willfully violating his ruling and moved toward contempt, though an appeals court has for months halted the proceedings.
The Justice Department's new complaint seeks to immediately take Boasberg off the case as an investigation proceeds. It suggests Boasberg should face a public reprimand or even be recommended for impeachment if the investigation finds 'willful misconduct.'
'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,' Mizelle wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration seeks to keep Nevada US Attorney in place before court can act
By Sarah N. Lynch WASHINGTON (Reuters) -President Donald Trump's administration has extended Nevada's Interim U.S. Attorney Sigal Chattah's term, aiming to prevent a federal court from rejecting her permanent appointment amid mounting opposition from critics including more than 100 retired federal and state judges, a Justice Department official said. Chattah, an Israel-born former Republican National Committeewoman, has been serving in the interim role since April. The 120-day deadline for her term is set to expire on Tuesday, which would open the door for the federal court in Nevada to appoint a U.S. Attorney since Trump has yet to nominate anyone for the role. The department designated Chattah Acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada under the federal Vacancies Reform Act, the department official said. Chattah announced her new role on X on Tuesday, adding "Rinse and repeat: The law is the ONLY thing that makes ALL people equal." Federal courts have so far rejected two of Trump's other U.S. Attorney picks: John Sarcone in the Northern District of New York and Trump's former personal lawyer Alina Habba in New Jersey. In both of those cases, the Justice Department used a variety of different legal maneuvers to keep them in place. In Habba's case, Attorney General Pam Bondi thwarted the federal court by removing Desiree Grace, Habba's first assistant whom the courts had chosen to serve as the state's top federal prosecutor. The maneuver in New Jersey has injected some uncertainty into federal criminal cases there, and defendants in at least one case have asked that their charges be dismissed based on an argument that Habba's appointment was unlawful. More than 100 retired federal and state judges this week urged the federal court in Nevada not to permanently appoint Chattah, citing her history of racially charged comments and her "extreme partisan bias," according to a letter seen by Reuters. "Chattah has frequently used violence-tinged language suggesting that her political opponent should be hanging from a crane, that protesters should be shot, and that people should 'buy ammo' in response to their grievances," wrote the 116 retired judges in a Monday letter to Andrew Gordon, the chief federal judge in Nevada. The letter listed examples including Chattah referring to former Democratic U.S. Representative Jamaal Bowman as an "antisemitic ghetto rat" and calling Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis "so ghetto" and asking: "Why do we have lawyers like this who litigate in Ebonics?" She also previously suggested that certain Democratic Jewish members of the U.S. Congress are equivalent to modern-day Nazi collaborators. A Justice Department official did not have any immediate comment about the letter criticizing Chattah. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Birthright citizenship: Crucial new details on how the Trump administration's policy would work — if the courts ever allow it
On his first day back in the White House, President Trump issued an executive order attempting to revoke birthright citizenship. Since then, the most important question has been whether he would be able to follow through with that pledge. So far, courts have repeatedly found that Trump does not have the power to unilaterally nullify a constitutional right, which has automatically granted anyone born in the United States citizenship — regardless of their parents' circumstances — for more than 150 years. The final say will likely come from the Supreme Court, which gave Trump an important procedural win last month but has yet to weigh in on his authority to revoke birthright citizenship. Another critical question that has lingered for the past seven months is who it would apply to. Trump's order established broad categories for the types of immigrants whose children would not be granted birthright citizenship. What it didn't provide was specifics on which types of immigrants would fit into those categories. On Friday, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) quietly published a memo to its website outlining those long-awaited details. Trump's original order outlined two sets of circumstances in which a child would not be granted citizenship: 1. The mother is 'unlawfully present' in the U.S. and the father isn't a citizen or permanent resident. 2. The mother's presence in the U.S. is 'lawful but temporary' and the father isn't a citizen or permanent resident. That first category is straightforward. The children of mothers who are not in the U.S. legally would not be granted citizenship. That second category, though, hinges on the definition of 'lawful but temporary,' which was not included in the original order. The U.S. immigration system is incredibly complex. There are dozens of different types of visas, statuses and other mechanisms that can allow someone to come and stay here. The most important thing the new memo does is define 'lawful but temporary' for the first time. Under the updated guidelines, 'lawful but temporary' status will include immigrants who are here legally but whose presence in the U.S. is 'time limited, for duration of status, or otherwise not perpetual.' It also includes a list that this definition will apply to. According to the new rules, birthright citizenship would not be granted to the children of mothers who have: Entered the U.S. for tourism, business, medical care or temporary work. Been granted a stay of removal because their life, freedom or safety would be threatened in their home country. Filed to voluntarily leave the U.S., but have not left yet. Received legal status through programs for certain relatives of immigrants who became legalized aliens. Received a visa through programs for victims of human trafficking and certain other crimes. Been granted Temporary Protected Status (e.g., Haitian migrants), deferred removal (i.e., DACA recipients) or parole for "urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons.' Cumulatively, these categories mean that the vast majority of legal immigrants will not pass on citizenship if they have children in the U.S. However, there are some important groups that would not be considered 'lawful but temporary' whose children would be granted citizenship. They include: Permanent residents Asylum recipients Refugees U.S. nationals who are noncitizens (e.g., people from American Samoa) Certain Native Americans who were born in Canada The memo adds that although the children of people with 'lawful but temporary status' would not be citizens, the government's policy will be designed to protect those children from 'any negative immigration consequence' as a result of being born without an official legal right to be in the U.S. Specifics of what that might mean, most importantly whether noncitizen children born in the U.S. would be subject to deportation or how their parents might apply for legal status, were not provided. All of these new details only matter if the courts give the Trump administration the power to put Trump's plan to revoke birthright citizenship into action, but they provide important clarification on how things would work if the policy ever does take effect. Solve the daily Crossword
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump brushes off European push on recognizing Palestinian statehood
'We never did discuss it. We have no view on that,' Trump said of Starmer's announcement on Air Force One on Tuesday. 'We are going to get a lot of money to the area so they get some food.' The growing international condemnation of Israel from American allies follows a United Nations-backed report from the world's leading authority on food crises, which warned that a 'worst-case scenario of famine' is playing out in Gaza. Trump also pushed back on pressure to urge Israel to come to a long-term solution to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, telling reporters such a move would play to the interests of Hamas. 'You could make the case that you're rewarding people, that you're rewarding Hamas if you do that,' he said Tuesday. 'I don't think they should be rewarded. I'm not in that camp, to be honest.' The Trump administration has since sought to downplay the rift between the two governments, with U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee saying Tuesday morning 'there is no break between the prime minister of Israel and the president.' Trump said the U.S. contributed $60 million to an effort to set up food centers in Gaza and that the centers, which will be operated by the Israeli government, would be set up 'very soon.' He added that the European Union would also be contributing to the effort to address the growing hunger crisis in Gaza. State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce told reporters Tuesday afternoon that the fighting in Gaza would have to cease before it would be appropriate to consider a future for a possible Palestinian state. 'Regardless of the conflict that has been worked on — whether it's Russia-Ukraine, the Gaza Strip or anywhere else — you can't really begin to contemplate what's next until people stop killing each other,' she said. 'We are still at that point. Because of Hamas' recalcitrance and refusal to lay down its arms, refusal to release the hostages, we're not at a point where we're looking at what is next.'
