Judge James Boasberg Faces Criticism Over Recent Rulings

Chief Justice James Boasberg is feeling the heat, and it seems he isn’t alone. A federal judge in Washington, D.C., expressed frustration over the D.C. Court of Appeals’ directive to review a case questioning the supposed biased enforcement of laws against political graffiti. At the same time, some litigants are equally upset, believing Boasberg is biased after he dismissed their claims without allowing a trial.

In a recent decision, Boasberg blocked a pro-life group from participating in jury duty following the arrest of a member who used chalk to write “Black Prenatal Lives Matter” on a sidewalk alongside the more well-known “Black Lives Matter.” This isn’t the first time Boasberg has made headlines; he’s previously faced backlash for clearing the Trump administration of contempt of court over deportation flights.

My main issue with Boasberg isn’t really about the core matters at stake, but about how the court seems to ignore its limits. Although Trump has criticized him for overreaching his authority, Boasberg himself has been overturned for doing just that.

In prior rulings, he dismissed a grand jury subpoena aimed at Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, which I had also questioned. Boasberg’s decisions often stem from what appear to be biased opinions about Trump and questionable sources.

Take this recent case, for instance. During 2020’s Black Lives Matter protests, graffiti covered many streets in Washington, even as law enforcement stood by. The government even went so far as to commission a public mural near the White House.

Yet when pro-life advocates tried to make their voices heard with a similar chalk message, they were swiftly arrested, and their protests erased. The D.C. Circuit later criticized Boasberg’s handling of the situation, pointing out that he wrongly assumed the group couldn’t challenge the selective enforcement of the law. His conclusion misapplied the standards for evaluating free speech claims, placing an undue burden on those contesting the law.

The appellate court wasn’t shy about expressing its discontent with Boasberg’s dismissal of First Amendment claims. They affirmed that the government shouldn’t favor one viewpoint over another, as doing so contradicts constitutional rights. The appellate court then sent the case back to Boasberg, insisting he apply the proper legal standards moving forward.

However, when Boasberg again dismissed this case, he didn’t seem to consider the factual basis presented by the pro-life and free speech litigants, which should have been assumed as true. He rejected their claims of being treated similarly to BLM protesters, even in light of evidence that showed otherwise.

The litigants are now appealing this latest decision. Boasberg’s fact-finding has raised eyebrows; he claimed there was no evidence of wrongdoing observed by law enforcement during the investigation. But the litigants provided videos showing officers watching as protesters vandalized property with messages associated with BLM.

This doesn’t guarantee a favorable ruling for the litigants—rather, it highlights that the court can’t undermine a jury’s findings if credible claims are made. Boasberg suggests that no reliable evidence exists, yet it’s reasonable to think a jury could find discrepancies in how laws were enforced based on the content of speech.

Unequal enforcement of speech laws isn’t unique to the U.S.; we see it in various countries, and in those places, courts often favor one perspective over another. Judge Boasberg has built a respectable career, but his decisions in these cases risk tarnishing that legacy. While he’s rightly called out overreaches in language and demands respect for court order compliance, it’s concerning when judges disregard established legal standards in favor of their opinions. This feels reminiscent of struggles from America’s early days—a narrative that seems to be far from complete.