The Justice Department has formally lodged a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, alleging his public remarks about President Trump and his administration breached judicial ethics and compromised the courts’ integrity. On July 28, 2025, Attorney General Pam Bondi—acting through her Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle—filed the complaint with Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit.
Bondi openly acknowledged on X that she had directed the DOJ to act. The complaint charges Boasberg with making “improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration,” asserting that his warnings—expressed at a March meeting of the Judicial Conference attended by Chief Justice John Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges—lacked any factual foundation and served only to undermine the judiciary’s impartiality.
Specifically, Mizelle asserts that on March 11, 2025, Judge Boasberg veered off standard Judicial Conference topics (e.g. budgets, security, facilities) to voice his belief that the Trump administration might “disregard rulings of federal courts” and precipitate “a constitutional crisis.” The complaint claims his concern had no basis -“the Trump Administration has always complied with all court orders,” Mizelle argues, and Boasberg provided no concrete examples of defiance.
Bondi’s filing goes further. It alleges a direct connection between Boasberg’s public remarks and his subsequent conduct. Within days of the March meeting, he issued a temporary restraining order blocking the deportation of alleged members of the Venezuelan criminal group Tren de Aragua, a move the DOJ lacked authority to challenge. The Supreme Court later vacated that order.
In April, Boasberg found probable cause that DOJ and Trump officials showed a “willful disregard” for his March 15 order to have planes bound for El Salvador returned to U.S. soil—an action tied to their invocation of the rarely used Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport suspected gang members to the infamous CECOT prison in El Salvador.
The complaint accuses Boasberg’s words and actions of violating multiple Canons of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, eroding public confidence in judicial impartiality, and warranting a formal investigation. Mizelle asked Judge Srinivasan to appoint a special investigative committee and to reassign the J.G.G. v. Trump case to another judge during the inquiry, to “prevent further erosion of public confidence.”
This marks the second complaint under AG Bondi’s DOJ against a federal judge in recent months. In February, a separate complaint targeted Judge Ana Reyes, alleging misconduct during Nicolas Talbott et al. v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by LGBTQ groups challenging Trump-era orders banning transgender individuals from serving in the military.
Former President Donald Trump has repeatedly labeled Boasberg a “radical left” judge, “agitator,” and floated impeachment—comments sharply rebuked by Chief Justice Roberts, who reminded the public that appellate review, not impeachment, is the correct recourse for judicial disagreements.
Internal DOJ communications—including emails and texts from whistleblower Erez Reuveni allege high‑level DOJ officials discussed ignoring Boasberg’s court orders or pressing ahead regardless. Democrats have used these revelations to challenge the nomination of senior DOJ official Emil Bove, who denies wrongdoing.
At exactly the same moment, former Florida Supreme Court justices and approximately 70 legal professionals filed an ethics complaint with the Florida Bar, accusing Bondi of politicizing her role and weaponizing DOJ powers. They accuse Bondi of pressuring DOJ attorneys to advance political aims and publicly discredit judges. Bondi’s office dismissed those allegations, labeling them “vexatious.”
Bondi’s DOJ is officially challenging Boasberg’s neutrality. The complaint accuses him of ungrounded public remarks and judicial overreach in the high‑stakes deportation case. It demands investigation, possible reassignment of the case, and potential sanctions—including impeachment if misconduct is confirmed.
