On Saturday, January 31, 2026, Reuters reported that a federal appeals court judge dismissed a judicial misconduct complaint filed by the U.S. Justice Department against Judge James Boasberg. The complaint stemmed from a disagreement between Judge Boasberg and the Trump administration regarding the deportation of Venezuelan individuals to El Salvador.

The unusual step of lodging a complaint was taken by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi in July. The complaint alleged that Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, presiding in Washington, D.C., made inappropriate remarks about President Donald Trump during a gathering of the judiciary’s policymaking body, known as the Judicial Conference.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a newly-released order, dated December 19, stating that the alleged statements, even if substantiated, would not constitute a violation of judicial ethics rules. The Justice Department has not issued a statement regarding the dismissal. Judge Boasberg, appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, has also declined to comment on the matter.

The complaint was announced shortly after Boasberg indicated he might initiate disciplinary actions against Justice Department lawyers for their handling of a lawsuit brought by Venezuelan individuals contesting their removal to a prison in El Salvador.

In April, Judge Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration appeared to have acted “in bad faith” by hastily organizing three deportation flights on March 15. These flights coincided with emergency court proceedings assessing the legality of the deportations.

The Justice Department’s complaint centered on comments attributed to Boasberg by the conservative media outlet The Federalist. These comments were allegedly made during a U.S. Judicial Conference meeting in March, which was attended by Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

The Justice Department contended that Boasberg expressed concerns to Roberts and others that the administration might disregard court rulings, potentially triggering “a constitutional crisis.” The DOJ argued that these comments violated the judicial code of conduct and that Boasberg acted improperly based on his beliefs regarding the litigation involving the Venezuelans, who were removed from the U.S. under the Alien Enemies Act.

Due to potential conflicts of interest among judges in D.C., Justice Roberts transferred the complaint to the Cincinnati-based 6th Circuit’s Judicial Council.

Judge Sutton stated that the DOJ lacked sufficient evidence that Boasberg made the alleged statements. Moreover, even if the statements were made, they would not be improper within the context of the judicial policymaking body’s closed-door meeting.

Sutton wrote that a judge’s expression of concern about executive-branch compliance with judicial orders, whether justified or not, is within the customary topics discussed at such meetings, including judicial independence, judicial security, and inter-branch relations, and thus does not violate the Codes of Judicial Conduct.

 

 

Source: Reuters