Judicial Conduct Complaint Dismissed in High-Profile Clash Over Trump-Era Deportations
WASHINGTON — A judicial misconduct complaint stemming from the Trump administration's contentious policy of deporting migrants to a notorious prison complex in El Salvador has been dismissed by a federal appeals court, according to an order made public this weekend.
The complaint, filed by the Justice Department against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, was dismissed on December 19 by Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Sutton found the department failed to provide substantiating evidence for its allegations.
The case reaches back to March 2025, when Judge Boasberg—chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.—reportedly warned Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges at a private judicial conference that the administration risked triggering a constitutional crisis by disregarding court orders. Days later, Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights the Trump administration was carrying out using centuries-old wartime authorities.
In a sharply worded dismissal, Judge Sutton noted the Justice Department never provided a promised attachment detailing proof of Boasberg's alleged remarks or their context. "A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them," wrote Sutton, a George W. Bush appointee. "And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint."
The ruling underscores the delicate balance of power between the judiciary and the executive branch, particularly during periods of aggressive immigration enforcement. Sutton observed that even if the comments were made, discussing threats to judicial independence fell within the bounds of appropriate conference discourse, echoing concerns Chief Justice Roberts himself raised in a 2024 year-end report.
The complaint had initially been filed with the D.C. Circuit Court but was transferred to the 6th Circuit to avoid a conflict of interest, as the D.C. court was still handling appeals related to the underlying deportation case.
Reaction & Analysis:
"This dismissal is a vindication for judicial independence," said Professor Elena Vance, a constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University. "It sends a clear message that judges cannot be sanctioned for privately expressing concerns about constitutional overreach, especially when those concerns prove prescient."
"A total whitewash," countered Mark Devlin, a former immigration official and frequent commentator. "It sets a dangerous precedent that judges can say whatever they want behind closed doors without accountability. The process was rigged from the start when it was shipped off to a friendly circuit."
"Procedurally, this was the only possible outcome," noted Attorney Priya Sharma, who practices before the D.C. district court. "The DOJ's complaint was procedurally thin. However, the underlying tension—between a judge's duty to uphold the law and an administration's push for sweeping enforcement—remains very real and unresolved."