Pam Bondi’s attack on Judge Boasberg is so hypocritical it would be funny if democracy weren’t at stake

The Justice Department has filed an ethics complaint against Judge James Boasberg, who serves as the chief U.S. district judge in Washington, D.C. The complaint focuses on Boasberg’s handling of a case involving the Trump administration’s deportation of Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador without proper legal procedures.

According to MSNBC, the case began on March 15 when five Venezuelans filed a lawsuit to stop their deportation under a 2025 presidential proclamation that used the Alien Enemies Act. This 1798 law allows the government to remove foreign citizens during times of war or foreign invasion, though some Trump-appointed judges have controversially supported its use in modern deportation cases. Boasberg ordered the administration to halt the deportations, comparing the situation to a nightmare scenario.

After reaching the Supreme Court, the case returned to Boasberg with a ruling that deportees must have the right to legal challenge before removal. Following this, Boasberg found that the government likely committed criminal contempt by ignoring his order to stop deportations. The Justice Department’s recent complaint claims Boasberg showed bias by expressing concerns about the Trump administration’s potential disregard for court orders at a judicial conference.

Trump’s ongoing battle with the judiciary shows a pattern of conflict

Throughout his first term and after leaving office, Trump has repeatedly criticized judges who ruled against his administration. He specifically called for Boasberg’s impeachment in March after the judge temporarily stopped deportations. The administration’s actions suggest a concerning pattern of challenging judicial authority.

The Justice Department’s complaint alleges that Boasberg tried to influence Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges by sharing concerns about the Trump administration’s potential disregard for court rulings. However, records show Boasberg was actually reporting his colleagues’ concerns rather than his own.

The situation has raised serious concerns about judicial independence. Judges regularly discuss constitutional approaches and legal trends in public, including during Senate confirmation hearings. This complaint could discourage judges from speaking out against executive overreach or commenting on broad legal issues that might conflict with administration policies.

Chief Justice John Roberts has emphasized the importance of judicial independence, comparing judges to umpires who must call balls and strikes fairly and impartially. However, the current situation tests the limits of this principle as the administration continues to challenge judicial authority through various means, including an unprecedented lawsuit against the entire bench of federal judges in Maryland regarding deportation cases, even as other federal judges have ruled against ICE’s discriminatory enforcement tactics.