Appeals Court Rejects DOJ Misconduct Complaint Against Federal Judge, Citing Lack of Evidence
A federal appeals court has thrown out a misconduct complaint filed by the Justice Department against U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, dealing a setback to the Trump administration's efforts to scrutinize judges who have ruled against its policies.
In a ruling made public this weekend, Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint dated December 19. The DOJ had alleged misconduct based on Judge Boasberg's remarks at a judicial conference, where he suggested the Trump administration risked a "constitutional crisis" by disregarding federal court orders. The comments were made shortly before Boasberg issued an order blocking a series of deportation flights.
Judge Sutton, writing for the court, found the government's submission lacking. "A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them," Sutton stated. "And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint." The ruling emphasized the absence of any recorded evidence or sufficient contextual detail regarding the judge's remarks.
The decision arrives amid heightened political tensions over the judiciary. Last week, the White House voiced support for a Senate Judiciary Committee impeachment inquiry targeting Judge Boasberg and another jurist labeled an "activist" by Republicans. "Left-wing, activist judges have gone totally rogue," a White House official told Fox News Digital. "They’re undermining the rule of law in service of their own radical agenda."
Judge Boasberg, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has been a frequent target of GOP criticism. His rulings have repeatedly challenged Trump-era immigration enforcement, including the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. More recently, he faced backlash for approving warrants in the "Arctic Frost" probe that led to the seizure of phone records linked to some Republican lawmakers. A senior court official defended Boasberg in December, noting the judge was likely unaware the sealed warrants involved congressional members.
Boasberg has faced impeachment articles twice: first in March 2025 related to the Alien Enemies Act rulings, and again in November concerning the "Arctic Frost" investigation.
Reaction & Analysis
Prof. Elena Rodriguez, Constitutional Law Scholar: "This dismissal underscores a critical procedural guardrail. The judiciary must be insulated from politically motivated complaints that lack evidentiary foundation. It's a reaffirmation of judicial independence, however contentious the underlying rulings may be."
Michael T. Briggs, Former Federal Prosecutor: "The court's reasoning is sound but narrow. It sidesteps the larger, legitimate debate about the appropriate boundaries for a judge's extra-judicial commentary. The DOJ's complaint may have been poorly presented, but the core question of judicial conduct remains."
Sarah Chen, Political Commentator: "This is a blatant example of the system protecting its own. A judge openly predicts a 'constitutional crisis' stemming from the elected President's policies, then rules on precisely those policies days later. The appearance of bias is staggering, and the court's technical dismissal is a cowardly avoidance of the real issue."
David P. Murphy, Court Watchdog Group Director: "The rapid escalation from a misconduct complaint to talks of impeachment reveals how deeply the judicial branch has become politicized. This ruling doesn't cool the temperature; it merely shifts the battle to another arena."
Fox News' Emma Colton and The Associated Press contributed to this report.