The assignment of Judge James Boasberg to a civil suit against Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, such as the one involving the Signalgate scandal, hinges on the random assignment process of the federal district court in Washington, D.C. With 20 judges on the bench, the probability of any single judge being assigned a specific case is a straightforward 1 in 20, or 5%. This low percentage underscores the inherent unpredictability of the assignment, as the system is designed to ensure impartiality by removing human bias from the selection process. Without evidence of tampering or external influence, it’s nearly impossible to prove that Boasberg’s assignment was anything other than chance, especially given the lack of publicly available data on case assignment patterns that might suggest otherwise.
 

Moreover, the context of Boasberg’s assignment doesn’t provide clear indicators of inevitability. While Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has a history of handling high-profile cases, there’s no inherent reason he would be more likely to receive this particular suit over another judge. The Signalgate lawsuit, which alleges Trump administration officials violated federal recordkeeping laws by using Signal to discuss military plans, is significant, but the court’s random assignment system doesn’t account for a judge’s past rulings or political leanings. Critics might speculate about deeper machinations—especially given the timing, just days after the Trump administration invoked “state secrets” privilege in a separate case before Boasberg—but such theories lack concrete evidence and rely on assumptions about a process meant to be blind.
 

Finally, the broader landscape of judicial assignments adds another layer of uncertainty. The federal district court in D.C. handles a high volume of politically charged cases, and judges like Boasberg are frequently assigned to them purely by chance. While some might point to Boasberg’s involvement in other Trump-related cases as a pattern, this could just as easily be a statistical coincidence in a busy court. Without access to internal court data or evidence of manipulation, any claim that Boasberg was destined to get this case remains speculative. The random nature of the assignment process, combined with the lack of specific predictors tying Boasberg to Hegseth’s case, makes it unprovable that his selection was anything but a roll of the dice.