Who Watches the Judges? Congress Must Investigate Judge Boasberg

It is a foundational tenet of the American legal system that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. When that principle is imperiled, especially by those entrusted with its guardianship, it becomes the solemn duty of Congress to investigate. Recent developments surrounding the case of J.G.G. v. Trump, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on March 15, 2025, raise grave concerns about judicial impartiality, procedural integrity, and the unchecked discretion of the Chief Judge, James Boasberg. The facts, as they are publicly known, demand scrutiny not only because of what they suggest about one judge's conduct but because they expose a structural vulnerability in the federal judiciary that Congress is uniquely positioned to address.

To review: The case in question, challenging the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, was filed between 1 and 3 AM on a Saturday morning. According to the District of Columbia's local court rules, such an emergency filing would, by default, be assigned to an "emergency judge" on rotation, who remains on call from 4:30 PM the previous day until 9:00 AM the next business day. That judge is not the Chief Judge. In fact, the rules explicitly preclude the Chief Judge from receiving such assignments.

Yet, Chief Judge Boasberg, then vacationing outside the jurisdiction, appeared on the emergency hearing via videoconference, casually attired and, by his own admission, enjoying time away from the bench. His presence, in and of itself, violates the assignment protocol. His assignment to the case, under any reasonable reading of the court's established procedures, should have been impossible. It would require either a clerical error of monumental proportion or deliberate circumvention of court protocol.

Reports now circulating suggest the latter. According to sources referenced by Senator Eric Schmitt in public statements on April 6 and 7, 2025, Judge Boasberg was aware of the impending emergency filing and alerted the Clerk of Court, Angela D. Caesar, with instructions that the case be routed to him, rather than to the designated emergency judge. If true, this constitutes an egregious abuse of authority. It would mean that the Chief Judge, a role explicitly exempted from emergency case assignment, not only inserted himself into a high-profile case but did so while on vacation, against procedural norms, and in a matter with obvious political implications.

Even more disconcerting is that this is not an isolated incident. The J.G.G. case marks at least the fourth major case involving President Trump to land in Judge Boasberg's courtroom. Statistically, the odds of such a pattern arising purely through random assignment are vanishingly small. When coincidence becomes regularity, suspicion becomes reason.

The potential for conflict of interest compounds the concern. Judge Boasberg's daughter, Katharine Boasberg, is employed by Partners for Justice, a nonprofit that offers legal support to undocumented immigrants, including those affiliated with violent criminal organizations. The nonprofit's founder has praised Judge Boasberg's ruling against the Trump administration's deportation efforts and has publicly opposed legislation such as the Laken Riley Act, designed to enhance detention of certain undocumented aliens. While familial relationships alone do not prove bias, they do create the appearance of partiality, which is precisely what judicial ethics rules aim to avoid.

Further undermining public confidence is Judge Boasberg's role in past controversies involving the surveillance of the Trump campaign. As presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, he oversaw a body that authorized multiple surveillance warrants as part of the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane investigation. That process, later condemned by the Department of Justice Inspector General for significant inaccuracies and omissions, has long been a source of conservative critique. For Boasberg to reappear, again and again, in cases involving Trump not only strains the limits of procedural plausibility but raises questions about institutional trust.

There is a deeper philosophical question here, one that cannot be resolved by mere appeals to procedural irregularity. That question concerns the legitimacy of judicial discretion in a democratic system. If a judge can, by informal conversation with a clerk, override the court's assignment rules, then the principle of random case assignment becomes a fiction. And if the fiction is permitted to persist, then the judiciary itself risks becoming a partisan actor, cloaked in the illusion of neutrality.

Skeptics may object that judicial independence demands restraint from legislative interference. But this misunderstands the nature of the concern. What is at issue is not judicial decision-making per se, but judicial self-dealing: the quiet assumption of cases where personal or ideological entanglements create even the appearance of bias. Congress has a constitutional role to play in ensuring the separation of powers does not devolve into collusion among the elite, shielded from public accountability.

This is not a call for punitive action. It is a call for transparency. Congress must investigate the assignment of the J.G.G. case, demand records from the Clerk's office, and compel testimony where necessary. It must examine how often Chief Judges nationwide are assigned to emergency matters and whether there exists a pattern of assignment manipulation in politically sensitive cases.

Moreover, Congress should consider legislation mandating the strict enforcement of random judicial assignments, particularly in high-profile or politically sensitive litigation. The model might borrow from the securities litigation context, where judges are barred from steering cases or influencing assignments in any way. Digital assignment logs, subject to audit, could serve as a check against manipulation. Further, judges with known familial or organizational ties to parties or causes implicated in a case should be required to disclose those ties and recuse themselves where appropriate.

No judge, however distinguished, is above the law. No procedural convenience justifies the erosion of public trust. And no institutional prerogative outweighs the need for impartial adjudication in a constitutional republic.

Judge Boasberg may yet have an explanation that satisfies procedural and ethical scrutiny. But it should not be his burden alone to offer one. It is the responsibility of Congress, as the people's branch, to ensure that the judiciary does not become an instrument of selective justice. When the rule of law begins to resemble the rule of preference, the moral architecture of the Republic begins to crack.

We are not yet at the precipice. But we are near enough to hear the echoes from the abyss. It is time to act.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.