The Department of Justice recently filed a complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg, alleging that his actions constitute inappropriate strong-arming of the Supreme Court, particularly in relation to his handling of controversial legal disputes. The complaint highlights instances where Boasberg is said to have overstepped his judicial authority, such as issuing orders that were later vacated by the Supreme Court, including a temporary restraining order on deportations that sparked a legal firestorm. This move by the DOJ, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, accuses Boasberg of undermining judicial impartiality with public comments and decisions that appear to target the Trump administration, prompting calls for a formal investigation into his conduct.

However, the more damning critique of Boasberg’s tenure lies in his earlier role as presiding judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) from 2020 to 2021, where he oversaw the approval of FISA warrants that facilitated surveillance of individuals associated with Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. These warrants, initially targeting former campaign adviser Carter Page, have since been scrutinized and partially invalidated by the DOJ itself, with admissions that two of the four applications lacked probable cause. Critics argue that Boasberg’s oversight during this period enabled what they describe as an abuse of power by the FBI and DOJ, using the secretive FISA process to spy on a political campaign, raising serious questions about judicial accountability and the integrity of the FISA court.

The contention is that while the DOJ’s current complaint focuses on Boasberg’s recent judicial overreach, the far graver offense warranting his dismissal and imprisonment is his complicity in the 2016 surveillance scandal. The revelation of significant errors and omissions in the FISA applications, as detailed in the DOJ Inspector General’s report, suggests that Boasberg failed in his duty to ensure the heightened candor expected in such proceedings. For many, this failure contributed to a politically motivated investigation that tarnished the electoral process, and they argue that mere disciplinary action is insufficient—calling instead for severe consequences to address what they see as a betrayal of judicial trust and a direct assault on democratic principles.