A federal judge has dismissed a misconduct complaint brought by the Department of Justice against Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg. This complaint stemmed from Boasberg’s handling of a case linked to the Alien Enemies Act earlier last year.
Filed in July 2025 by the office of Attorney General Pam Bondi, the complaint accused Boasberg, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, of making “improper public comments” regarding former President Donald Trump during a semiannual judicial conference. The DOJ alleged that these comments, made during a discussion with Supreme Court Justice John Roberts and other federal judges, compromised the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Specifically, Boasberg was said to have warned that Trump might disregard federal court rulings, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis.
Boasberg previously ruled against Trump’s implementation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in relation to mass deportation efforts. Last March, he issued restrictions preventing the federal government from deporting individuals under this law. Despite these legal constraints, the Department of Homeland Security reportedly removed over 200 noncitizens from the U.S. to a facility in El Salvador, raising questions about compliance with Boasberg’s order.
Efforts by Boasberg to initiate contempt proceedings against administration officials over compliance issues have been stalled since mid-December. In a dismissal of the misconduct complaint, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton stated that the DOJ failed to present adequate evidence to support their claims. Additionally, he emphasized that discussions among judges at such events are customary and essential for judicial administration, stating, “A key point of the Judicial Conference and the related meetings is to facilitate candid conversations about judicial administration among leaders of the federal judiciary about matters of common concern.”
This dismissal highlights the complexity of judicial interactions and the delicate balance judges must maintain when conveying concerns about executive compliance with judicial orders. It underscores a commitment to preserving the independence and integrity of the judiciary, even amid contentious political dynamics.