On Monday, October 6, 2025, Legal analysts Liz Dye and Andrew Torrez published an article at “Law and Chaos,” alleging that the Justice Department (DOJ) lied in a judicial misconduct complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The complaint, addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the D.C. Circuit, accused Judge Boasberg of attempting to intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts during a March meeting of the Judicial Conference and of making “improper public comments” about pending cases, purportedly violating the Judicial Canon.

According to the Law and Chaos report, the complaint, signed by Attorney General’s chief of staff Chad Mizelle, referenced an “Attachment A at 16” as evidence. However, this attachment was reportedly missing from the copy of the complaint that was leaked to reporters in July. Law and Chaos further claims, based on a source familiar with the matter, that Chief Judge Srinivasan also did not receive the referenced attachment. This has led to questions about the veracity of the allegations against Judge Boasberg.

Law and Chaos filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for “Attachment A” on July 28, seeking expedited processing due to the document’s apparent relevance to a matter of public interest. The organization argued that the document, believed to have originated from a member of the judiciary and subsequently provided to the DOJ, should be considered an agency record subject to FOIA. They also emphasized the widespread public attention the issue had garnered, including tweets by the Attorney General and coverage in major news outlets.

The DOJ’s Office of Information Policy (OIP) denied the request for expedited processing and assigned the request to the “complex track,” potentially delaying its release for years. The OIP claimed that there was no “particular urgency” to inform the public about the matter beyond the general right to know about government activities. Christina Troiani, Chief of Administrative Appeals, upheld this decision, arguing that the request involved “unusual circumstances” requiring a search for records from field offices or other separate offices, despite Law and Chaos’s assertion that the document was a single item recently in the Attorney General’s possession.

Law and Chaos subsequently filed for partial summary judgment. Their attorney, Kel McClanahan of National Security Counselors, argued that the case is newsworthy due to its implications for the credibility of either the judicial or executive branch. McClanahan contended that even accepting the DOJ’s allegations at face value, the requested document raises “possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence,” as defined in 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(e)(1)(iv). He further argued that if the DOJ’s allegations are inaccurate, it would raise even more serious questions about the agency’s integrity.

The Law and Chaos article suggests that the DOJ’s complaint was a publicity stunt intended to discredit Judge Boasberg, who has issued rulings unfavorable to the Trump administration. The authors criticize the DOJ for failing to provide evidence to support their allegations and for attempting to delay the release of information through the FOIA process. The article concludes with a demand for the Attorney General to release the requested document.

 

 

Source: Law and Chaos