The judicial branch has waged war on the Trump admin. They weren’t prepared for the blowback.
And this U.S. federal judge violating his oath to attack President Trump is facing huge consequences.
Judge Boasberg’s Trump Takedown Put Under The Microscope, Panned By Legal Experts
The Trump administration’s relentless fight to rid America of dangerous gangbangers is hitting a brick wall, and that wall’s name is U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg. Appointed by Barack Obama, this judicial roadblock has thrown a wrench into President Donald Trump’s plans to deport suspected Tren de Aragua gang members to a mega-prison in El Salvador. Legal eagles are now flapping their wings, questioning whether Boasberg’s rulings are tainted by personal ties and a penchant for playing policymaker from the bench.
Back in March, Boasberg slammed the brakes on Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—a wartime gem the president dusted off to fast-track the removal of these criminal elements. Trump’s response? A fiery counterpunch, accusing the judge of coddling terrorists at the expense of American safety. The administration’s deportation flights were grounded mid-air, though three planes carrying 238 Tren de Aragua suspects and 23 MS-13 thugs still touched down in El Salvador. Now, experts are crying foul, suggesting Boasberg should step aside due to a glaring conflict of interest tied to his daughter’s job.
The heat’s on because Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine, works for Partners in Justice, a New York nonprofit cozying up to illegal aliens and cheering her dad’s decision to halt the deportations. Hans von Spakovsky, a sharp legal mind from the Heritage Foundation, didn’t mince words when he spoke to the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF): “Under Canon 3 (C) (1) of the ‘Code of Conduct for United States Judges’ it states that judges must disqualify themselves from a case ‘in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” With Katharine’s gig at an outfit that’s all-in for illegal immigrants and vocally backs Boasberg’s ruling, von Spakovsky insists, “He should have recused himself given his immediate family’s involvement in advocacy for illegal immigration.”
The saga kicked off on March 15 when Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to round up and ship out Tren de Aragua gangsters. Boasberg’s swift block turned the operation into chaos, forcing planes to U-turn—except for those three that slipped through. The Trump team came out swinging, with Attorney General Pam Bondi blasting the judge: “Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans. This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.” The Justice Department fired back with an appeal and a demand for Boasberg’s reassignment, slamming his “highly unusual and improper procedures.”
Trump himself took to Truth Social, unleashing a tirade that cut to the chase: “If a President doesn’t have the right to throw murderers, and other criminals, out of our Country because a Radical Left Lunatic Judge wants to assume the role of President, then our Country is in very big trouble, and destined to fail!” The president’s frustration is palpable, and his supporters see Boasberg as a poster child for judicial overreach—an unelected official thwarting a duly elected leader’s mandate to protect the nation.
Dig deeper, and the plot thickens. Katharine Boasberg’s employer, Partners in Justice, scrubbed her bio from their site once her dad landed this case, but the internet never forgets—an archived page confirms her role. Before that, she worked at the Center for Justice Innovation, a left-leaning outfit obsessed with “racial justice” in courts. The group’s founder, Emily Galvin-Almanza, gushed that Boasberg’s deportation block was “rightly” decided and has trashed the Laken Riley Act, a Trump-backed law to detain illegal migrants who commit theft. Smells like a family affair, doesn’t it?
The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges is crystal clear: recusal is mandatory when a judge’s kid has an interest that could be “substantially affected” by a case’s outcome. Katharine’s work with an anti-deportation crew fits that bill like a glove. Yet, some legal scholars argue it’s not so simple. Richard Painter from the University of Minnesota told the DCNF, “Generally the employment of an adult child of a judge does not mandate recusal, even if the adult child is employed by a law firm representing a party in the case.” But he added a kicker: “The involvement of an adult child herself is” grounds for stepping aside. Katharine’s gig isn’t just a paycheck—it’s advocacy with a pulse.
Boasberg’s no stranger to tangling with Trump. Since Obama plopped him on the bench in 2011, he’s presided over blockbuster cases, including one probing government honchos using Signal to chat about Yemen ops. In this deportation dust-up, he’s scolded the administration for letting those March 15 flights land in El Salvador despite his order. The DOJ countered that his written ruling didn’t drop until the planes were over international waters—too late to turn back. Sounds like a judge itching to flex his muscles, not enforce the law.
Former immigration judge Matt O’Brien, now with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, didn’t buy the bias angle but still torched Boasberg’s approach: “The real problem with Judge Boasberg’s ruling isn’t any kind of bias. Rather, it is that, in this particular case, he rendered a decision which appears to have been intended to effectuate a specific policy outcome.” O’Brien’s point? Judges don’t get to play president. “Instead, Judge Boasberg was charged with applying the relevant law to the facts of the case. Rather than doing his job he engaged in judicial activism (making policy from the bench).”
The Trump administration isn’t alone in its outrage. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, a staunch Trump ally, has had enough of judges like Boasberg wielding outsized power. In March, he rolled out a bill to clip the wings of federal courts issuing nationwide injunctions—orders that stall entire government branches over one case. With over 20 Senate co-sponsors already on board, the GOP’s appetite for reining in rogue judges is roaring. Grassley’s move could neuter Boasberg’s ability to handcuff Trump’s agenda single-handedly.
O’Brien doubled down, warning that Boasberg’s meddling “intruded upon powers that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly assigned to the Executive Branch.” That’s not just a legal quibble—it’s a gut punch to the separation of powers, leaving the government wobbling like a top. For Trump’s team, this isn’t about one judge’s family ties; it’s about a judiciary that’s forgotten its place.
Team Trump sees Boasberg as a symptom of a bigger disease: activist judges who think they run the show. The administration’s push to deport gangbangers isn’t just policy—it’s a promise to Americans tired of crime spilling over porous borders. Boasberg’s roadblock isn’t just a legal hiccup; it’s a lifeline to thugs who’d rather terrorize our streets than face justice in El Salvador.
The clash has lit a fire under Trump’s base, who view this as a do-or-die moment for national security. With the Justice Department appealing and Grassley’s bill gaining steam, the administration’s betting on a one-two punch: oust Boasberg from the case and rewrite the rules so no judge can pull this stunt again. The stakes? A safer America—or a country where gangbangers get a free pass, courtesy of a judge with a questionable family tree.
The Conservative Column will update you on any major updates from the courts on the Trump admin’s executive orders.
