A case concerning the ethics of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg was inadequately investigated, leading conservative watchdog groups to appeal for his removal.
The Center for the Advancement of American Security (CASA) stated that Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton improperly dismissed the charges last December and has filed an appeal claiming due process was not followed.
“We think that this type of conduct is completely unacceptable, and we’re asking the Judicial Council to reexamine this decision,” CASA Director James Fitzpatrick mentioned in a statement. “We believe Judge Boasberg has violated numerous judicial norms, showing bias against the Trump administration and its officials. His behavior is politically charged and should definitely be investigated.”
Boasberg, who was appointed by Obama and currently serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., allegedly displayed “political bias” against former President Donald Trump. CASA argues that he facilitated a situation that could be described as one of the gravest scandals in U.S. history. This assertion stems from Boasberg’s approval of a confidentiality order that kept Republican lawmakers unaware of cell phone records that had been subpoenaed by Biden’s Department of Justice in 2023.
Former special counsel Jack Smith has sought extensive records from several Republican lawmakers, including phone calls and text messages from early January 2021. Documents show that Verizon complied, though AT&T raised concerns about the subpoena involving Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
CASA’s original complaint highlights Boasberg’s troubling remarks at a March 2025 U.S. Judicial Conference, where he suggested that the Trump administration might bypass federal court rulings entirely, risking a constitutional crisis.
“The allegations made in the complaint can be substantiated through an investigation,” CASA stated in its appeal. “Moreover, congressional and court records can verify much of what we’ve outlined. Interviews with attendees of the relevant meetings could also corroborate these facts.”
Sutton contended that even assuming Boasberg made the comments attributed to him, it wouldn’t hinder the court’s operations. “These discussions are meant to promote openness about justice administration among federal judiciary leaders on shared concerns,” Sutton noted. “A judge voicing worries about the executive branch’s adherence to judicial orders—regardless of whether those worries are justified—is typical in meeting contexts.”
He also mentioned that the complaint lacked clarity regarding Boasberg’s involvement with the confidentiality order or any explicit evidence of bias.
“Without grounded charges, this essentially critiques the judge’s rulings rather than alleging misconduct,” he added. “Complaint processes shouldn’t be misused to question the outcomes of judicial hearings.”
In its appeal, CASA urged the Judicial Council to rethink Sutton’s dismissal, noting that complaints may only be dismissed under specific criteria, including lack of evidence suggesting wrongdoing.
Texas Republican Rep. Brandon Gill had previously filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg after his role in a secrecy order was uncovered, linking to a larger legal context regarding Smith’s lawsuit against Trump.
Gill also cited instances where Boasberg ordered the return of a plane allegedly carrying gang members to El Salvador.
In December, Boasberg had initiated contempt hearings to look into whether officials had deliberately breached a March order, although the appeals court paused these proceedings. Additionally, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in January, several Republicans advocated for Boasberg’s impeachment.
“He’s a corrupt judge,” remarked Missouri Republican Sen. Eric Schmidt. “The House should pursue impeachment based on these articles, followed by a trial to hold him accountable.”
As of now, no impeachment vote has taken place, and Boasberg’s special assistant has not provided any comments.
