Daily Caller News Foundation

As U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg continues to be a thorn in the side of the Trump administration’s effort to deport gangbangers, legal experts have begun to raise questions about his handling of the case.

The Obama-appointed judge in March blocked President Donald Trump from using wartime authorities to send suspected Tren de Aragua gangbangers to a mega-prison in El Salvador, prompting incredible pushback from the president himself. As the challenge to the deportations play out in court, some legal experts have argued Boasberg should recuse himself from the case entirely, while others say he appears to be “making policy from the bench.”

Critics have pointed to the fact that Boasberg’s daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for an organization whose founder openly celebrated her father’s decision to halt the deportations.

“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,’” Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Given that his daughter works directly for an organization that supports illegal aliens, opposes deportation of aliens, and has voiced its support for Boasberg’s action in this very case, the impartiality of his judgment is obviously open to be reasonably questioned.”

“He should have recused himself given his immediate family’s involvement in advocacy for illegal Immigration,” Spakovsky continued.

The debate began on March 15, when Trump officially invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a seldom-used wartime authority, to expeditiously arrest and deport Tren de Aragua gang members. Boasberg quickly issued a temporary block on the flights and ordered any deportation flights in the air to turn around. However, three planes carrying 238 suspected and confirmed Tren de Aragua gangbangers and 23 MS-13 gang members managed to land at the El Salvador International airport.

The Trump administration immediately ripped Boasberg for the decision.

Advertisement

“Tonight, a DC trial judge supported Tren de Aragua terrorists over the safety of Americans,” Attorney General Pam Bondi stated after Boasberg’s order. “This order disregards well-established authority regarding President Trump’s power, and it puts the public and law enforcement at risk.”

In a court filing the following Monday, the Justice Department appealed the order and called for Boasberg to be reassigned. The administration further ripped the judge for “highly unusual and improper procedures” and accused the court of a “hasty public inquiry” into sensitive national security matters involving a criminal syndicate.

“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!” Trump posted on Truth Social.

Questions over possible conflicts of interest arose after Boasberg’s family connections to a liberal organization surfaced. His daughter, Katherine, works for Partners in Justice, a nonprofit group based in New York City that provides client advocates to public defenders.

The group removed her biography from its website after Boasberg was assigned to the Alien Enemies Act case, according to the New York Post, but an archive of the page was saved. Before landing at Partners for Justice, Katherine worked at the Center for Justice Innovation, a left-wing organization that advocates for “racial justice” in the court system.

Emily Galvin-Almanza, the founder and executive director of Partners in Justice, said Boasberg’s decision to block the wartime deportations was done “rightly” and she previously took to social media to rip the Laken Riley Act, a law mandating federal Immigration authorities detain illegal migrants who commit theft-related crimes.

The Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges makes clear that judges must recuse themselves from a case “in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” including instances when a child of a judge is “known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding.”

Advertisement

However, there is debate over whether Boasberg fits this description.

“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,” Richard Painter, a law professor for the University of Minnesota, said to the DCNF. “However, if the adult child is at all involved in the representation of a party, recusal of the judge is generally required.”

“Although nonprofits that don’t provide legal representation do not represent parties, I would apply the same rule,” Painter continued. “The involvement of an adult child’s employee in a matter is not sufficient grounds for recusal, but the involvement of the adult child herself is.”

Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama in 2011, Boasberg has since presided over a number of high-profile court cases over the years, including those involving the Trump administration. In addition to the Alien Enemies Act case, the 62-year-old judge is also ruling over a lawsuit challenging top government officials’ use of Signal to discuss sensitive military operations in Yemen.

Boasberg ripped the administration for allowing the deportation flights on March 15 to continue on to their destination in El Salvador, ostensibly in defiance of his order, and has demanded the DOJ answer a litany of questions regarding the flights. The administration has pointed out the judge’s written order didn’t get released until after the flights were already over international waters.

While hesitant to declare whether Boasberg has any conflicts of interest in the deportation case, Matt O’Brien, a former Immigration judge, questioned the immense scope of his ruling.

“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, who now serves as Director of Investigations for the Immigration Reform Law Institute, said to the DCNF.

“However, his job isn’t to create policy – that duty belongs to the Executive Branch and Congress,” he said. “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).”

Similar to O’Brien, the administration and other Republicans have voiced consternation over the level of authority a single district court judge is able to wield over an entire administrative branch of government.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, a top ally of the president, introduced legislation in March that calls for limiting federal court orders to parties directly before the court. If passed and signed into law, such a move would essentially squash universal injunctions and rein in the scope of judicial activism.

The desire to see such reforms in the judiciary appears to be quite high within the GOP. Grassley’s bill, which was very recently introduced, already touts more than 20 co-sponsors in the upper chamber.

“And by engaging in such behavior, Judge Boasberg intruded upon powers that the Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act very clearly assigned to the Executive Branch,” O’Brien said. “That upends our system of checks and balances and throws the whole machinery of government off kilter.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].