A misconduct lawsuit filed by the Justice Department against a district judge who obstructed Trump administration deportation flights to a renowned prison in El Salvador has been denied by a federal appeals court.
On December 19, Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied the complaint against Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg. The dismissal order became public over the weekend.
The case centers on private remarks Judge Boasberg allegedly made in March 2025 during a judicial conference, warning that the administration’s disrespect for court rulings could trigger a constitutional crisis. These views were apparently communicated with Chief Justice John Roberts and other judges—just days before Boasberg halted deportation flights authorized under an 18th-century wartime law.
"A repeating of unadorned charges with no reference to a source does not corroborate them.
— Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
Judge Sutton underlined that the Justice Department failed to offer any supporting evidence, such as the listed attachment meant to document the claimed words or their context.
He came to the conclusion that, even if the comments were made, they did not violate ethical norms and fit within authorized discussion themes at court conferences.
Sutton pointed to Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024 year-end report, which emphasized broader worries about judicial independence, judge safety, and the significance of upholding court verdicts.
Key Details of the Dismissal
The complaint was first filed with the D.C. Circuit’s chief judge but was transferred to the 6th Circuit by Chief Justice Roberts to prevent any conflict, as the D.C. Circuit was still processing related deportation appeals.
No immediate comment was available from Justice Department spokespeople or representatives of Judge Boasberg’s court.
Background of the Dispute
The debate emerged after Judge Boasberg imposed an injunction banning deportation flights to El Salvador’s high-security jail. The Trump administration had cited ancient wartime legislation to carry out the removals.
Main Takeaways from the Ruling
Lack of proof undermined the complaint from the outset.
Discussions concerning court authority at judicial conferences are typically protected speech.
No breach of judicial behavior norms was identified.
✓ The reported statements were not supported by any evidence.
✓ Even if genuine, remarks were not unethical
✓ Complaint transferred to 6th Circuit to avoid conflict
✓ Order issued December 19, 2025
The decision underlines the high bar required for successful judicial misconduct charges.
Wider Consequences
The verdict respects judicial independence while emphasizing the limitations of using misconduct charges against judges in politically contentious immigration cases.
This outcome may discourage subsequent complaints unless solid, recorded evidence exists.
Even if the statements were uttered, they would not be so far out from themes covered at the gathering.— Chief Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton
The verdict gives finality to this particular ethics challenge but leaves the underlying deportation litigation ongoing in other courts.
