What To Make Of The Leak From The Judicial Conference?

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist obtained a copy of a memorandum prepared by the Judicial Conference of the United States. This group includes the Chief Justice of the United States, the Chief Judges of the Federal Courts of Appeals, as well as certain district court judges. Margot did not reveal who authored the memorandum.

To be clear, I have no love for the Judicial Conference. I think they completely botched the judicial reassignment policy. And these august judges haven't said a peep about Judge Pauline Newman's stealth impeachment. Still, I am profoundly troubled by leaks. I don't like leaks from the Supreme Court. And I don't like leaks from other judicial bodies. The deliberations of the judicial conference should more transparent. Trying to figure out what is going on resembles Kremlinology. But as things stand now, they aren't transparent. Cleveland does not say how she got the document. I imagine it would have had to come from a judge, or perhaps someone on a judge's staff. No matter how you slice it, this leak is bad.

I suppose if I am being consistent, I should call on the presiding officer of the entity that had the leak to resign. But I repeat myself.

Now, onto the substance. Here is how Cleveland describes the memorandum:

During the week of March 11, 2025, members of the Judicial Conference met in Washington, D.C., for the first of its two regular meetings. . . .

In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a "working breakfast" at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, "District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues' concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis."

"Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize," according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that "his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath."

I have a few tentative observations.

First, I find it fascinating that Chief Justice Roberts relayed his conversation from the State of the Union. If I had to guess, Trump exchanged these kind words during the pleasantries as he entered the Chamber. But, as readers recall, Chief Justice Roberts bolted out of the chamber after Trump finished speaking. And Justice Barrett gave Trump a sideways glance after shaking his hand.

Second, I find it even more fascinating that Roberts is serving as a voice of reason, pushing back at the notion that he doesn't think Trump will ignore court orders. Roberts did flag this issue in his end-of-year message, but he is at least giving Trump some space.

Third, it seems clear that Judges like Boasberg lost trust in Trump, before any cases were assigned to him. And that lack of trust pervaded his Saturday emergency TRO hearing, where he ordered planes to turn around. If Boasberg followed a presumption of regularity, he would not have issued such an order.

Margot suggests this memorandum reveals bias on the part of Judge Boasberg and others. I suspect this report will give rise to a motion to recuse. I would like to see the full memorandum. And perhaps in the interest of full disclosure, Judge Boasberg should reveal his position here.

Comments

[loki13]

I literally just glanced at this, so if someone dives into this more deeply, let me know if I'm wrong.

There is a leak of private judicial deliberations in a "memorandum." It is obtained by ... let's say a very biased individual with an agenda.

That person does not say where the obtained the memorandum. They don't provide (as far as I can tell) the complete memorandum so others can see it and evaluate it. Instead, they provide us what they say are the important things from it that happen to support a story that they want to tell.

By the way, based only on what was stated, this can't be a credible basis for a motion to recuse.

Now, let us assume for a minute that this is a correct recounting of what the deliberations were, and that there hasn't been context or anything else omitted. In other words, assume (for a second) everything in the light most favorable to the person who wrote a story with an obvious agenda.

The Chief Judge of the DDC raised his colleagues' concerns that this administration might disregard court orders. And the Chief Justice of SCOTUS expressed hope that this would not happen.

And? The Chief Judge of a Circuit expressing the concerns that his colleagues have raised to him, and the Chief Justice of SCOTUS replying that he hopes it won't be an issue.

Why is this shocking in any way?

[LexAquilia]

Right, it's totally normal for judges to selectively apply their "presumption of normalcy" or "deference to the government" based upon their political affiliation.

Like, why is anyone thinking this is wrong? Right? That's totally normal for justice systems to behave differently based upon political affiliation.

[David Nieporent]

You seem to be responding to some other topic. Try reading again what Loki wrote, and answering that question.

[Lee Moore]

There is a leak of private judicial deliberations in a "memorandum." It is obtained by ... let's say a very biased individual with an agenda.

I think I'll whatabout that. Leaks are usually leaked to journos / commenters with an agenda. How tiresome would it be to go to the trouble of leaking a leak to someone who didn't feel motivated to publish it ? Leakers leak in the same way as plaintiffs plead, if they can - to their friends and allies, who share their obsessions. (Or at the very least - to their enemy's enemies.)

By the way, based only on what was stated, this can't be a credible basis for a motion to recuse.

Maybe so. But you seem to doubt that the Judicial Conference memorializes its deliberations and even if it does whether this is a leak of a real document. I should have thought a litigant could discover the first in nine seconds, and as for the second - if there's a memorandum it says what it says. Not hard to find out.

But I agree that Boasberg is in the clear - because the alleged memorandum is worded in "some people say" style. Boasberg does not himself question the Trumpies commitment to obey court orders, he's just passing on the concerns of unspecified colleagues.

This point is at least suggestive that the memorandum is genuine. Why would a hoaxer make up an allegation with a useless "some people say" gotcha, rather than a killer "I say" one ?

[loki13]

Look, I read the article that it supported. If you can't tell what's going on there, I can't help you.

My concern isn't so much that there isn't a genuine memorandum- it's that we get ... just this. Not even quotes, just a little bit. Show the whole memorandum, context and all. Right? Normally, when you have a document source, a journalist will make the document available along with the scoop.

And yes, I am quite aware of selective leaking and agendas- it happens all the time. Just rarely so ... obviously.

[Frank Drackman]

Somebody needs to get the "Big Pussy" treatment (No Aspersions on Margots's (redacted) it's a "Soprano's" reference)

Frank

[Purple Martin]

I am profoundly troubled by leaks. I don't like leaks from the Supreme Court. And I don't like leaks from other judicial bodies. ... Cleveland does not say how she got the document. I imagine it would have had to come from a judge, or perhaps someone on a judge's staff. No matter how you slice it, this leak is bad.

But since I can describe this leak in a way that supports my priors, I love it! love it! love it!

[Brett Bellmore]

There seems something funny about objecting to leaks in the name of transparency...

[Doug Heffernan]

Using the term "leak" itself is pejorative and implies something sinister. More information is almost always better than less.

Blackman seems to be arguing that the process should be more transparent, but since that it is currently not transparent, it should be maximally not transparent.

[Riva]

In sum, Boasberg has been unequivocally exposed as a contemptible judicial hack who has no business being a federal judge. Expressing out and out animus and bias to a litigant should disqualify him from overseeing any case involving that party. That his bias is directed against the head of a coordinate branch of government makes his comments that much worse. Roberts' weak reaction is also telling.

[David Nieporent]

In sum, the bot is not programmed to understand words like "animus" and "bias," since the alleged memorandum as described expresses neither. Also, Trump wasn't a party, but hacks like Margot Cleveland — who claims to have clerked for a judge for decades, but never names that judge — don't understand nuances of things like "laws."

[Ridgeway]

"I suppose if I am being consistent, I should call on the presiding officer of the entity that had the leak to resign."

Wait 'til Josh B learns about leaks from the Trump Administration.

[David Nieporent]

If Boasberg followed a presumption of regularity, he would not have issued such an order.

1) The biggest scandal is the notion that there is ever a presumption of regularity. The government should never be given a thumb on the scale in its favor.
2) If Boasberg followed a presumption of regularity, he would indeed have issued such an order.
3) Blackman continues not to understand what the word "presumption" means, anyway.