The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
An Update On The Leak From The Judicial Conference
And DOJ files a misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg.
Two weeks ago, I wrote about a leaked memorandum from the Judicial Conference, which was published by Margot Cleveland at the Federalist. At the time, the Federalist did not publish the entire memorandum, but only included excerpts.
In a thread, Margot explained that she didn't publish the "lengthy" memorandum because it had "nearly 20 pages of internal discussions, none of which had ANYTHING to do with Boasberg's comments." Margot added that "Those discussions provided neither content or context to Boasberg's comments and were either held no news value or in my judgment and that of my editor . . ."
Margot also provides the entire relevant paragraph concerning Judge Boasberg's comments:
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. The Chief Justice talked about how 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.
Cleveland is not the only person who has this memorandum. The Department of Justice filed a misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg. Footnote 2 references the memorandum.
On March 11, 2025, at one of the Conference's semiannual meetings, Judge Boasberg disregarded its history, tradition, and purpose to push a wholly unsolicited discussion about "concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts, leading to a constitutional crisis." [FN2] By singling out a sitting President who was (and remains) a party to dozens of active cases, Judge Boasberg attempted to transform a routine housekeeping agenda into a forum to persuade the Chief Justice and other federal judges of his preconceived belief that the Trump Administration would violate court orders.
[FN2] Attachment A at 16.
The complaint is directed to Chief Judge Srinivasan. As Margot points out, it is not clear whether Chief Judge Srinivasan was present at the meeting where Boasberg made these comments:
9/9 And memo indicates that not all members of Judicial Conference attended the breakfast. Bottom line: Judge Boasberg's comments revealed colleagues on D.C. District Court had bias against a litigant. That was and is extremely newsworthy. Judge Srinivasan can take it from here.
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 29, 2025
If Srinivasan was present, and has personal knowledge beyond the cursory discussion in the memorandum, recusal might be on the table. In any event, I would hope Judge Srinivasan gives this matter at least as much scrutiny as he gave the ill-fated smear attack against Judge Griffith.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good to see Josh standing up for judicial independence...oh wait...
Hating the litigants and putting your thumbs on the scale isn't "judicial independence". It's judicial something, that's for sure.
A litigant's right to a fair and impartial arbiter does not compromise "judicial independence."
I don’t see any harm in doing this (what, is Boasberg going to become MORE biased against them?), but seems very unlikely to result in any action. Just look at the first line (“Dear Chief Judge Srinivasan”). That line right there pretty much seals the deal. And if the conduct was so egregious, why didn’t Robert’s call it out? Srinivasan isn’t going to be harsher than Robert’s was.
"why didn’t Robert’s call it out"
John Roberts? The name answers the question.
JR is never going to challenge another judge face to face. Not cricket.
“Just look at the first line (“Dear Chief Judge Srinivasan”). That line right there pretty much seals the deal.”
Good lord. The standard greeting used in letters for like 500 years is now evidence of bias apparently.
He just means Srinivasan will not do anything about the complaint.
Sure. That’s why he decided to type a weird point about the greeting and not anything substantive.
Concern that someone isn't going to follow court orders does not show bias, just as a judge denying bail because they have concerns about the defendant showing up doesn't show bias. That is even before you get to the point that he is raising his colleague's concerns as he is supposed to do (unless you think he is just playing Trump's favorite game of "some people are saying"). There is nothing improper with this and definitely doesn't require recusal.
+1
By Judge Boasberg's own framing of the issue, the government's failure to comply with its orders would start a constitutional crisis. I highly doubt he, or any other judge, thinks a criminal defendant not following orders to appear for trial would cause a constitutional crisis. So, by the judge's own standard, this is qualitatively different from the hypothetical you propose.
In any event, judges don't deny bail because they have "concerns" the defendant won't show up. They do so when the prosecution puts forth evidence that there is a likelihood the defendant won't attend court proceedings, and they then make factual determinations and apply the applicable law to the facts. It's not a matter of their "concerns." It's about the law and evidence. If, however, the judge said to himself, "This guy is going to jump bail," and then just ratified whatever the prosecution put before him no matter how weak because of his preconceived notions about the defendant, then he would have a bias against the defendant and should recuse.
"...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."
That's not his framing.
Indeed. But I think the real question is this. If you feel there are baseless accusations that you won't adhere to court rulings or show respect for judicial powers, is your course of action: a) refute allegations through scrupulous respect for same; or b) file a complaint about the judge (or any judge?) to seek to remove them from some or all of their functions?
Given that Trump had not appeared before Boasberg at the time and has still not refused to follow court orders --- though he should refuse on principle now. This is clear bias. That he made his first big ruling against Trump 4 days later shows the bias and that his verdict was, guaranteed, not come to impartially.
+1
"Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize. The Chief Justice talked about how 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."
So he was "baised" against something he "hoped" would not happen (and therefore, probably did not believe had happened just four days later), and "biased" against someone with whom he'd admittedly had only "civil and respectful" interactions.
Wish much?
So the guys causing a constitutional crisis are worried about a constitutional crisis?
I am shocked, shocked!
Trump: does something unconstitutional
Judges: "stop doing something unconstitutional"
Cultists: "judges are causing a constitutional crisis!"
You left out the following before all that:
Obama: does something unconstitutional
Judges: stop doing something unconstitutional
Judges: *crickets* about Obama possibly ignoring the ruling
Biden: does something unconstitutional
Judges: stop doing something unconstitutional
Judges: *crickets* about Biden possibly ignoring the ruling
Trump: does something unconstitutional
Judges: stop doing something unconstitutional
Judges: ***OMG!!! What if he ignores us! CJJR you need to DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!***
Ah yes. Trump is allowed to do what you want because Dem Presidents didn’t obey your version of the Constitution.
I mean look at this weak sauce: “ possibly ignoring the ruling”
The Trump admin has a more going on than possibly.
"bias against a litigant"
Judges are generally allowed to form opinions based on information learned during litigation. The Trump administration has a habit of trying not to comply with the spirit of court orders. If Judge Boasberg acted on rumors that Emil Bove proposed to ignore his orders, that's another story.
On 3/11/25 --- which "orders" had been ignored?
Mind you, judges are now claiming not funding Planned Parenthood is unconstitutional and are trying to engage in foreign policy as well, so we know which branch needs to be smacked down in no uncertain terms.
"The Trump administration has a habit of trying not to comply with the spirit of court orders."
Wow, we are now in the spirit world. I must have missed that one in Rule 65.
You know, it's like penumbras.
Well, if you can't figure it out, you can always call GhostBusters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe93CLbHjxQ
Thanks for that.
Just remember, DON'T CROSS THE STREAMS!!!!
Can you give an example = violate the spirit of a written judicial order?
Good for DOJ. Libs have filed all sorts of bogus disciplinary charges. Give them a small taste of their own medicine.
Nothing going to come of it though.
Ethics is just a game to you, huh? This is why you’re a fake lawyer.
Your side started the game dude. Lawfare is a lib tactic.
There are no sides in legal ethics. We each take an oath to adhere to the rules of professional responsibility. I’m sorry that you have so little respect for your profession that you don’t understand that. But it does explain why you can’t bear the scrutiny of courts.
"why you can’t bear the scrutiny of courts"
LOL Such litigator arrogance!
I help the economy grow, you chase ambulances or deadbeats.
Facts.
Lawyers are, AT BEST, leeches.
Yes I’m sure buying credit card debt for pennies on the dollar or whatever helps the economy grow.
Ha, you don't even know what I do. Not even close.
Not that I'm going to enlighten my stalker with any details.
You don’t know what I do either! Other than that I’m a better lawyer than you and it makes you furious!
I took it as he's not a litigator. Transactional.
If JB was, in any way, shape, or form, anything other than a breathless repeater of ... stuff, he would probably know the following-
This misconduct complaint isn't going anywhere. If the DOJ still had competent counsel, it would never have filed this. But it doesn't. Instead, this is just a further signal to the judiciary that the DOJ is not longer a serious litigant.
The DOJ has institutional stature that has been earned when it comes to the courts; it is somewhat amazing how quickly it has been utterly trashed in so short a period of time.
Well, when you have inept activists instead of judges, I don't think anybody should care.
Cultists definition of "activist judge": someone who follows the constitution, not Dear Leader
"It is illegal for Congress to decide to not fund things" is not a ruling of a sane, impartial judge.
Congress?
Presumably he's talking about the latest ruling on Planned Parenthood funding.
But yes, it may be unconstitutional for Congress to specifically not fund one particular organization.
Ah. So a whole different judge and a whole different case.
Just another game of musical grievances from MAGA!
The grievance is the point.
Loki, I object to your framing in one way: this isn't a misconduct complaint. It's a press release thinly disguised as a misconduct complaint.
LOL. Can't disagree with that. It's (stupid) turtles, all the way down.
By they way, I love JB's breathless recitation of the explanation for why the whole memorandum wasn't published. "Trust me, there's nothing else in there I think y'all need to see."
The DOJ lost competence 4 years ago, stature too.
How do you say, "I don't practice law," without actually saying, "I don't practice law?"
What would be the "Problem" with a "judicial crisis" (or two or more) wherein the Article. III. courts were:
i) relieved of inferior and supreme Court judges who consistently exhibit "bad Behaviour" (the opposite of "good Behaviour"; defined by practice of the courts in England and in the Colonies 230+ years ago), while simultaneously acknowledging there is no "life tenure" for Article. III. judges (and judges constantly repeating that "falsehood" does nothing for their credibility);
ii) forced to admitted there is no "judicial supremacy" within or intended by the Constitution (that each of the Executive and Legislature have a similar duty to support the Constitution (which can only occur if they have a reasonable understanding of its limits); and
iii) so much of stare decisis and dicta is without Constitutional basis and those Opinions which are "judicial constructs", "legislation" and acts of "amending the Constitution" need be abandon in toto, i.e., the entirety.
Are we that afraid of living the Country outlined by the "limited delegated" Powers set forth in the Constitution, absent the offenses outlined in the Declaration of Independence ?
I vote for a few "constitutional crises", remediating the above may release enough "societal" pressure for the People to regain control of what is supposedly "of, by and for" them.
3 branches that can check one another.
You would hamstring one and call it limited powers, ignoring what that does to the other branches.
Some people want a king.
Professor Blackman, I have a question and I'd really like you to respond in some way. At a recent meeting of the Judicial Conference, several members presented a concern; they were afraid that the Trump administration might ignore Court decisions, creating a constitutional crisis. My question concerns a different but very much related concern. Should the Supreme Court be concerned that district courts are ignoring Supreme Court precedent? And how can the Supreme Court even address (much less correct) this issue?
I've posed the same question to Professor Adler, who wrote earlier on this same issue.
There is history of district courts ignoring court orders. Desegregation.
The Supreme Court was not swift, but they made their displeasure known.
That’s not happening here. So maybe your take on the legal lay of the land isn’t right.
km may be referring to district courts ignoring the Supreme Court's gun rights decisions.
Just a grammar point:
"Those discussions provided neither content or context to…”
Should be ‘Those discussions provided neither content NOR context to…’
(Caps used only to denote the suggested change)
It was a quote of what someone else said/wrote.
Are you demanding a "[sic]" or just a sincere apology?
I like how in his first post on this topic, Professor Blackman had to lead in with how terrible he thinks leaks are. But of course, he continues to breathlessly amplify the leak whenever he can. So I guess he doesn't hate them that much, at least when it's obviously Republicans doing it.
Professor Blackman,
The DoJ alleged the judge violated Canon 3(A)(6). That provision states that “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”
This was a private comment at a private meeting. Can you point to any comment Boasberg made that was public?
And if you can't, does the sheer frivolity of the allegation point to the real motivation of Pam Bondi et al., i.e., to intimidate the federal judiciary?
It wasn't public and it wasn't on the merits of any matter, either!
I'm not sure that's what "public" means in this context, but "the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court" is pretty clear: his published comments did not concern the merits of any such matters.
That would require legal analysis.