Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
Either Judge James Boasberg just hasn’t gotten the message about his outrageous behavior, or this Obama-appointed judge thinks he’s above the law. He’s proved to be a rogue judge, running roughshod over the separation of powers, and repeatedly acting in ways that are unethical, possibly illegal, and blatantly partisan. And these actions go all the way back to President Trump’s first term.
Just how vile are his actions? Remember Russiagate? Well, he was involved in the “get Trump” conspiracy back then, too. As reported by Jonathan Turley:
Indeed, it was Boasberg … who ordered the resulting investigation into the false information given to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court as part of the Russiagate investigation. He was criticized for appointing an attorney to assist him, David Kris, whom the Washington Post described as ‘highly controversial’ given his past denials of any wrongdoing by the Justice Department.
Turley also notes that Boasberg was keenly aware of “abuses of power” against Trump associates and ordinary citizens regarding illegal surveillance and J6. Yet that didn’t get in the way of him continuing the agenda. One of the most shocking actions (at least, that has been discovered) taken by Judge Boasberg recently came to light: during the Biden administration under the heading “Arctic Frost,” the DoJ weaponized its power to pursue phone records of Republican legislators.
A bicameral group of Republicans in Congress is grilling James Boasberg, the U.S. district chief judge for Washington, D.C., on his decision to allow lawfare activist Jack Smith to spy on the Senate, offering him the ‘opportunity to explain [himself] publicly’ for a decision that almost certainly violated federal law.
As The Federalist reported, Boasberg approved a scheme under the Department of Justice’s Arctic Frost weaponization against Republicans in which Smith could subpoena the phone records of House and Senate Republicans and attach a nondisclosure order (NDO) so that the congressional bodies could not find out about it from the telecommunications providers being subpoenaed.
In recent months, he’s acted against Trump’s efforts to deport illegal alien gang members. Fortunately, the Supreme Court intervened:
The Supreme Court decision reversing U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s block on President Donald Trump’s deportation of gang members under the Alien Enemies Act sent a stern message to federal judges nationwide that overreach and venue shopping won't be tolerated.
Nevertheless, judges all over the country have found a workaround, and Judge Boasberg has continued to operate in the same way. The Solicitor General has pointed out that Temporary Restraining Orders under the Trump Administration are at historic highs:
An April 2024 study from the Harvard Law Review found that 96 TROs had been issued since President George W. Bush took office up until the publication date. Sixty-four of those were under Trump’s first term. Biden faced only 14 and Trump’s second term has already exceeded that total. The [Trump] administration previously highlighted to the court that ‘District courts have issued more universal injunctions and TROs during February 2025 alone than through the first three years of the Biden Administration.’
As if these activities were not significant enough, he made public statements that are prohibited by the judicial system, prompting the DoJ to file a complaint against Boasberg for misconduct:
The DOJ complaint cites comments Boasberg made at the Judicial Conference in March, where he expressed concern that the Trump administration would ‘disregard rulings of federal courts’ and trigger ‘a constitutional crisis.’ According to the complaint, Boasberg’s words and conduct ‘erode public confidence in judicial neutrality, and warrant a formal investigation under Rule 11,’ which stipulates how a chief judge of a U.S. Court of Appeals should respond when a judicial misconduct or disability complaint is filed. The department said the judge's remarks undermined the appearance of judicial neutrality and breached ethical standards requiring judges to avoid political commentary.
Back to the new phone records scandal: There is no way that Boasberg could have believed that this scheme was acceptable. To intentionally hide this information from the legislators violates the law. As a result, articles of impeachment are being considered, but Senator Eric Schmitt wants to ensure that Boasberg cannot take judicial action in the meantime. He has written to the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and to D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, calling for the administrative suspension of Chief Judge James Boasberg for abusing his judicial authority to target the Trump administration, sitting Republican Senators, and conservative organizations. To ensure that a response is expected to be received from Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, the letter has requested the following responses:
-
A status update on the DOJ judicial misconduct complaint filed against Judge Boasberg on July 28, 2025.
-
If this judicial misconduct complaint has been dismissed, provide written explanation for dismissing it, as well as any other misconduct complaints against Chief Judge Boasberg that have been filed in 2025.
-
If he (Judge Srinivasan) is yet to act on this judicial misconduct complaint, provide a written explanation for why he has failed to ‘expeditiously’ act upon the complaint.
-
If he has formed a special committee to investigate the judicial misconduct complaint.
We’ll watch this process unfold to determine how corrupt and defiant the D.C. Circuit Chief Judge is prepared to be. Whether justice will finally be upheld for these flagrant violations of the Constitution and the abuse of the separation of powers remains to be seen.
[Originally published in American Thinker]
Discussion (41)
STAFF • CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
This is misplaced outrage. If your phone records were subpoenaed in a criminal investigation do you think you would be notified? Do you think Bob Menendez should have been notified that his phone and text records were being subpoenaed just because he was a Senator?
Despite Ted Cruz’s hyperbole that his phone had been “tapped,” all conversations remained private. Some of Boasberg’s legal philosophy may be whacked, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Equality before the law should mean just that.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It was outrageous because it was a fishing expedition; no law had been broken or violation was made. These senators were targeted because they were Republicans, not because they had potentially done something wrong.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
It’s worth noting that Professor Turley has strongly opposed Boasberg’s impeachment.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
He does say that what Boasberg did was wrong, but doesn't rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors." I'm not an attorney and I greatly respect Turley, but I question his opinion.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Agreed. A snooping subpoena or search warrant in the absence of probable cause that a crime has been committed is a constitutional violation and an abuse of authority. The fact that such misconduct was knowingly undertaken by a federal judge, against whom there is no recourse other than impeachment, makes it all the more chilling. I am not aware that any action under a civil rights statute would overcome the judicial immunity and lifetime tenure such judges enjoy.
You're seeing five of 41 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.