Appeals Court Judge Dismisses Justice Department Complaint Against Jurist in Deportation Dispute

BY EMMANUEL OGBONNA

A federal appeals court judge has dismissed a misconduct complaint brought by the Justice Department against a U.S. district judge who had clashed with President Donald Trump’s administration over the deportation of migrants to a high-security prison in El Salvador, concluding that the allegations were unsupported and failed to meet the standard required for disciplinary action.

The complaint against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg was dismissed on Dec. 19 by Jeffrey S. Sutton, the chief judge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the decision was issued late last year, it did not become public until it surfaced over the weekend, drawing renewed attention to a legal fight that has underscored tensions between the executive branch and the federal judiciary.

Judge Boasberg, who serves as chief judge of the federal district court in Washington, had been targeted by the Justice Department over remarks he was alleged to have made during a closed-door judicial conference in March 2025. According to the complaint, Boasberg warned Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges that the administration risked provoking a constitutional crisis if it disregarded federal court rulings.

The meeting occurred just days before Boasberg issued an order halting deportation flights that the Trump administration was conducting under wartime authorities derived from an 18th-century statute.

In his dismissal order, Sutton said the Justice Department failed to substantiate its claims. He noted that a key attachment referenced in the complaint — purportedly containing evidence of what Boasberg said and the context in which the remarks were made — was never provided. Without that material, Sutton wrote, the allegations amounted to little more than repetition without verification.

“A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them,” Sutton wrote. “And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint.” Sutton, who was appointed to the appellate court by President George W. Bush, oversees a circuit that includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee.

Sutton also addressed the substance of the alleged comments, saying that even if Boasberg had made them, they would not fall outside the bounds of appropriate discussion at a judicial conference. He said such gatherings routinely involve candid exchanges about the rule of law, judicial independence and compliance with court orders. Sutton pointed to Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024 year-end report, which broadly discussed historical threats to the judiciary, concerns about judges’ security and the importance of respecting court decisions.

The handling of the complaint itself reflected the sensitivity of the underlying litigation. It was initially filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Srinivasan, however, asked that the matter be transferred because his court was still reviewing appeals connected to the deportation case at the center of the dispute. Roberts approved the transfer, sending the complaint to the 6th Circuit for independent review.

Neither the Justice Department nor representatives of Boasberg’s court immediately responded to requests for comment following disclosure of the dismissal.

The episode highlights the strain between the Trump administration and parts of the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement and the use of expansive executive authority. While the deportation policy itself continues to face legal scrutiny, Sutton’s decision brings an end to the misconduct proceedings against Boasberg, reinforcing the high bar required to discipline federal judges and the judiciary’s insistence on maintaining its independence from political pressure.