Misconduct complaint dismissed against judge who handled El Salvador prison deportation case

A federal appeals court judge has dismissed a misconduct complaint filed by the Justice Department against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who had previously clashed with the Trump administration over deportations to El Salvador.

The dismissal order, issued on December 19 by Jeffrey S. Sutton, chief judge of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, only became public this weekend. Sutton, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, oversees the appeals court circuit covering Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee.

The Justice Department’s complaint centered on remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March 2025 during a closed-door judicial conference attended by Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges. According to the complaint, Boasberg suggested the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings.

The conference occurred just days before Boasberg, who serves as chief judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued an order blocking deportation flights. These deportations were being carried out by the Trump administration through the invocation of wartime authorities derived from an 18th-century law.

In his dismissal, Judge Sutton cited the Justice Department’s failure to provide evidence substantiating what Boasberg actually said or the context of his alleged statements. “A recycling of unadorned allegations with no reference to a source does not corroborate them. And a repetition of uncorroborated statements rarely supplies a basis for a valid misconduct complaint,” Sutton wrote in his order.

The judge further reasoned that even if Boasberg had made the comments as alleged, they would not be “so far afield” from topics normally discussed at such gatherings and would not constitute violations of judicial ethics rules. Sutton specifically referenced Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024 year-end report, which had addressed broader concerns about threats to judicial independence, security concerns for judges, and respect for court orders throughout American history.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch during the Trump administration, particularly regarding immigration policy. The deportations in question were particularly controversial as they involved sending migrants to a prison in El Salvador with a notorious reputation for human rights abuses.

The procedural path of the complaint itself reflected the complexity of the judicial system’s internal review mechanisms. Initially filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the complaint was transferred to another circuit at Srinivasan’s request. This transfer was necessary because Srinivasan’s court was still considering appeals related to the underlying deportation case. Chief Justice Roberts subsequently assigned the matter to the 6th Circuit.

The dismissal represents a significant victory for Boasberg, whose judicial independence was effectively challenged by the Justice Department. Such complaints against federal judges are relatively rare, especially when filed by executive branch agencies against judges who have ruled against administration policies.

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

The case underscores the ongoing debate about the proper boundaries between branches of government and the judiciary’s role in reviewing executive actions, particularly in contentious policy areas like immigration enforcement. It also demonstrates the judiciary’s internal mechanisms for addressing allegations of misconduct while maintaining the independence deemed essential to the functioning of the courts.