Judge Boasberg is a rogue judge. He has found himself as the judge of many cases dealing with Trump. For some reason, the magic lottery machine picks his name at “random” when the case involves Trump.
While it is true that you should never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity, this guy is not dumb.
He made it through Yale to be given a Bachelor’s. He then completed a Juris Doctor at Yale, then passed the bar. He was in private practice from 1991 though 1996. In 1996, he became an Assistant US Attorney for D.C. After 6 years, he was made an associate Judge at the Superior Court of DC. This is a “state” level court.
In 2011, Obama appointed him a Judge of the District Court, District of Columbia.
I don’t care what your politics are, you don’t make it to this point without having some level of smarts.
So this is not something that can be explained away by stupidity, leaving malice as the most likely cause.
Boasberg was slapped down by the Supreme Court in April. The Justices said that he did not have Jurisdiction in the case.
He knew this. He knew it when the case came before him. He issued a Preliminary Injunction, called it a TRO, then allowed the administration only a short time to accomplish the impossible.
Having been put in his place by the Supreme Court, he then proceeded to hold the administration in contempt of court for failure to follow his TRO.
It works like this, a party requests a TRO, asking for something, “bring me the head of that troublesome priest.” The judge grants the TRO. Now, the party ordered to do bring the head refuses.
They are now in contempt of court. They appeal, the Appeals court says, “you can’t order them to execute somebody.” The party no longer has to cut the head of that troublesome priest. They are still in contempt of court.
That is the power of a judge.
That is what Boasberg did. He gave a court order. That order was not followed out because it was not possible, nor was it an order he had the constitutional authority to issue. He has the case law to back him, though. He knew the administration would refuse, and therefore he gets to slap them with a contempt charge.
Having found the administration in contempt, the administration appealed to the Circuit Court and requested an administrative stay by the district court.
We are used to seeing this in Second Amendment cases, the district court finds for The People, the judge knows the state will appeal, he issues a 30-day administrative stay of their order to allow the state time to appeal.
This judge denied the motion for an administrative stay.
He ordered the government to assert they have custody of the people in CECOT. This means that the administration can be ordered to present any of them in court. If the administration does not assert custody of the deported Alien Enemies in CECOT, they must provide this rogue judge some other means of ordering them to bring terrorists before him.
The only other option he “granted” was for the administration to offer up a scapegoat to be vilified and punished by this rogue court.
Among other problems, Defendants’ arguments rely on a misconstruction of the Court’s directive. Having found probable cause that they committed criminal contempt, the Court required Defendants to choose one of two paths. See Order at 1. First, they can opt to purge their probable contempt and explain to the Court how they will do so. Id. In its Opinion, the Court observed that the “most obvious way” for them to do so would be by choosing to “assert[] custody of the individuals who were removed in violation of the Court’s classwide TRO so that they might avail themselves of their right to challenge their removability through a habeas proceeding.” Op. at 43–44. In offering the Government a chance to voluntarily assert custody of the people it placed in a foreign prison, then, the Order did not “forc[e] the government to successfully execute foreign diplomacy” in violation of the separation of powers. See Mot. Br. at 11. The Court expressly allowed, moreover, that Defendants could “propose other methods of coming into compliance.” Op. at 44. Whether to purge the likely contempt, and whether to do so by voluntarily asserting custody of those individuals in Salvadoran jail, is entirely up to Defendants. If they do not want to “make what was wrong, right,” Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 2025 WL 1135112, at *1 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2025), they can choose the second path: identify the individual(s) whose conduct caused the noncompliance. See Order at 1. Although the Opinion noted that the Court might eventually refer this matter for prosecution, see Op. at 44 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a)(2)), we are not at that juncture. Their separation-of-powers arguments concerning any future prosecution(s), see Mot. Br. at 8–11, are therefore premature and misplaced.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS that Defendants’ [88] Emergency Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal is DENIED.
— J.G.G. v. TRUMP, 1:25-cv-00766, (D.D.C. Apr 18, 2025) ECF No. 91
Leave a Reply