DOJ's complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg engaged in "misconduct" would be laughably stupid if it didn't reflect such a transparently obvious and dangerous attempt to delegitimize the federal courts.
"But when this entire episode is based upon Chief Judge Boasberg raising his colleagues’ concerns about what would happen if the government generally failed to comply with court orders (versus not complying in specific cases), and the government has since … failed to comply with many court orders, again, it seems like what Boasberg was doing is exactly what he should have been doing."
And, of course, this goes to the heart of the Emil Bove appellate judge nomination, and the whistleblower(s) producing emails of Bove stating blithely that "DOJ lawyers should be prepared to say 'Fuck you' to judges" trying to block unconstitutional assaults on immigrants' rights of due process. Judge Boasberg in fact got the "fuck you" treatment repeatedly and with great vigour from the DOJ. It's on the effing record, Bondi!
Alas - the status for Bove no longer is 'nomination', but 'confirmation'. And, this will not be the last we'll see for wholly unqualified candidates who are more concerned with fealty to the President rather than to the Constitution.
I've posted here many times before that I feel civil disobedience may soon be an important tool for responding to a corrupt judiciary and lawless Court decisions. I'm starting to see others voicing the same opinion: https://theintercept.com/2025/07/31/emil-bove-judge-courts-trump/
It seems that Mizelle filed a frivolous document with the judicial council, and Bondi launched a groundless attack on the federal judiciary. Both deserve professional discipline themselves.
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .
I am a (recently retired) lawyer. I freely admit that I love our legal system. I clerked on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and I count that as one of the best years of my life. I am proud of our legal system, and I treasure it. It's like a favorite child.
So as you can imagine, the past few years have been tough on me. I've watched as my beloved favorite child has been mistreated and exploited by a passel of undistinguished, unprincipled, third-rate lawyers who serve at the behest of one of the most corrupt and iniquitous persons to ever set foot in a federal building.
I don't know how we will ever dig out of the hole they've dug. It will take decades, if it can be done at all.
I too am a (recently retired) lawyer; and my love affair with the law is the one affair that has lasted me all of my life. There is no doubt that the Incumbent Administration has quite purposefully set about to corrupt the legal system. But I don't think it is a question of "digging" out. I think of it in JFK's Terms--"-Don't get mad, get even." But do it according to the Rule of Law. And that is exactly what is happening. A motion has been filed asking the New Jersey Federal Courts to declare that any actions authorized by Alina Habba in her utterly unlawful capacity as acting Deputy US Attorney are null and void; in the likely event that the Whistleblower statements are ignored and this F--the Courts Bove creature is confirmed, motions to recuse him from any case involved government policies especially but not exclusively on immigration are a certainty. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The failure to uphold the law is not a failing of the legal system. It is a failure of the political system particularly the Senate and the members of one party in particular. Peter Finley Dunn provided the remedy: "It is not clear whether the Constitution follows the flag itis clear that the Supreme Court follows thee election returns."
There has just been another positive step. Several civil rights groups have filed a suit to prohibit ICE from attempting to arrest immigrants on Church Grounds. Over due but also a significant step to restoring the Rule of Law
Is there no penalty for lawyers like Bondi who file this trash in our court system and then lie about it? No referrals to some relevant organization for ethical review or censure?
They already asked for reassignment of cases in the complaint (item 2, p. 4):
III. Relief Requested
The Department of Justice respectfully requests that the Chief Judge take the following actions pursuant to Rules 5, 11, and 20 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings:
1. Docket and refer this complaint to a special investigative committee under
Rule 11(f), as an inquiry is essential to determine whether Judge Boasberg’s
conduct constitutes “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts.”
2. Order interim corrective measures during the investigation, including reassignment
of all related J.G.G. v. Trump cases to another judge to prevent further erosion of
public confidence while the investigation proceeds.
What the DOJ did here calls to mind statements by the dissenting justices in 2024 in Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP (in which the majority knowingly violated our Constitution by pretending that "partisan gerrymandering" (segregating residents based on voters' political opinions (including their actual votes) did not violate our Constitution). Of course, partisan gerrymandering irrefutably violates "the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people" to "assemble," including for the purpose of choosing or removing our representatives. Violating such freedom and right necessarily is the precise point of partisan gerrymandering.
So the dissenting justices said, "The proper response to this case is not to throw up." They really did say that. But that really would be an extremely inaccurate characterization of what they said and meant. They said “[t]he proper response to this case is not to throw up novel roadblocks enabling” state legislators “to continue dividing citizens” in a manner that clearly violates our Constitution.
The dissent in Alexander also said more that was directly relevant to the DOJ's (or The Federalist) absurd complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg's statement somehow violated the "presumption of regularity" (which merely sometimes favors federal employees in some (actual) civil litigation).
The Alexander dissent responded to the majority's deceitful abuse of an unconstitutional “presumption” that state legislators acted in “good faith” (by making partisan gerrymandering extremely closely resemble racial gerrymandering). The dissent clarified that stating a “presumption” is just another way of saying who must “bear [what] burden of proof.” Crucially, a presumption favoring one party applies only when the opposing party must bear the burden of proof or burden of producing evidence. Federal law says something similar. See Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
As the Alexander dissent emphasized, at most, the “good faith” (or regularity) of government actors may be “presumed” only “until” some “showing” has been made that government actors acted illegally (violated our Constitution or other law). A “good-faith presumption” essentially “tells a court not to [merely] assume [government action] is flawed or to limit the [government's] opportunities to defend it.” Such “presumption may suggest sending a case to trial, rather than rejecting [government action] on summary judgment.”
A “presumption of good faith” favoring government employees also “reminds a court that it is a serious matter to find" purported public servants "in breach of the Constitution.” However, it is an even more serious matter for any purported public servant (including state legislators, SCOTUS justices, the president or DOJ attorneys) to knowingly violate our Constitution or knowingly help someone violate our Constitution. As Article VI emphasizes, our "Constitution" is "the supreme Law of the Land" and all legislators "and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution."
So glad you wrote this - I read the 'complaint' earlier, and felt it was a(nother) blatant distraction by the Trump administration totally lacking in merit (thank you for the detailed analysis of its fatal flaws). Instead of relying on someone like the Chief Justice to take any responsibility to provide context or a possible retort, I've often wondered if it wouldn't be somehow possible to allow for punitive action to be taken by the judiciary in instances (like this one) when a demonstrably-frivolous filing is made. Of course, the bar for such a determination would necessarily be high, but it seems to me that giving such a tool to the judiciary would be vital in order to effectively address lawless, reckless (and dangerous!) behavior like we are witnessing with the current President's administration.
Now is our moment—take action against this harmful government. Covering up a pedophile ring. Ignoring court orders. Blatant corruption. The poor, the needy, and children are being abused—by our government. In the streets we must protest outright crooks and the pedophiles until after their shooting us starts, until we go down or we oust tyrants. I made 54 protest signs, and will make many more to share. You will see something different in these signs! Help yourself to this second batch, and share them as far as you can.
Thank you professor Steve Vladek for speaking up and out. Because of you, Marc Elias, Joyce Vance, Norm Eisen, Adam Klasfeld, Katie Phang, Michael Popok et al we are becoming educated outspoken constituents of our hapless congress folks
Thank you. The flagrant disrespect for the judiciary displayed by DOJ and the Trump administration is staggering. Couple that with the incompetence, sycophancy and blind ambition of the lawyers in Trump’s ambit and we have a politicized body that will take down the rule of law with no qualms.
I actually LOL'd when reading Jonathan Adler's comment about how "we should not be so quick to ascribe political or prudential motives, when principled explanations suffice." As has been pointed out many times by Prof. Vladeck, the public is not able to determine if "principled explanations" are even being used when unsigned, unexplained decisions are shoved upon us one after the other. At least Adler added an "UPDATE:" that "more fulsome explanations of its various "shadow docket" orders" just MIGHT be a good idea....
You left out an additional motivation--the latest Epstein distraction.
It's as if we woke up and a troupe of angry monkeys were running the executive branch, conducting business in Newspeak
Speaking of monkeys, here are the three steps the Chief Justice will take wrt District Chief Justice Boasberg’s and the lower courts’ concerns:
🙈 🙉 🙊
That’s an insult to monkeys!
Professor Vladeck-Thank you for this piece. Very informative.
"But when this entire episode is based upon Chief Judge Boasberg raising his colleagues’ concerns about what would happen if the government generally failed to comply with court orders (versus not complying in specific cases), and the government has since … failed to comply with many court orders, again, it seems like what Boasberg was doing is exactly what he should have been doing."
And, of course, this goes to the heart of the Emil Bove appellate judge nomination, and the whistleblower(s) producing emails of Bove stating blithely that "DOJ lawyers should be prepared to say 'Fuck you' to judges" trying to block unconstitutional assaults on immigrants' rights of due process. Judge Boasberg in fact got the "fuck you" treatment repeatedly and with great vigour from the DOJ. It's on the effing record, Bondi!
Thanks, Lance. I thought about adding a comment regarding Bove’s confirmation after I read about it, but yours is spot on.
Alas - the status for Bove no longer is 'nomination', but 'confirmation'. And, this will not be the last we'll see for wholly unqualified candidates who are more concerned with fealty to the President rather than to the Constitution.
I've posted here many times before that I feel civil disobedience may soon be an important tool for responding to a corrupt judiciary and lawless Court decisions. I'm starting to see others voicing the same opinion: https://theintercept.com/2025/07/31/emil-bove-judge-courts-trump/
It seems that Mizelle filed a frivolous document with the judicial council, and Bondi launched a groundless attack on the federal judiciary. Both deserve professional discipline themselves.
Model Rule of Professional Conduct 8.2(a):
(a) A lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge . . . .
I see this is part of the rules of professional conduct for the Florida Bar, where Mizelle is a member.
Thank you for explaining these legal issues for those of us who are not lawyers (heck, I was a cello performance major). It is timely and important
I am a (recently retired) lawyer. I freely admit that I love our legal system. I clerked on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and I count that as one of the best years of my life. I am proud of our legal system, and I treasure it. It's like a favorite child.
So as you can imagine, the past few years have been tough on me. I've watched as my beloved favorite child has been mistreated and exploited by a passel of undistinguished, unprincipled, third-rate lawyers who serve at the behest of one of the most corrupt and iniquitous persons to ever set foot in a federal building.
I don't know how we will ever dig out of the hole they've dug. It will take decades, if it can be done at all.
I too am a (recently retired) lawyer; and my love affair with the law is the one affair that has lasted me all of my life. There is no doubt that the Incumbent Administration has quite purposefully set about to corrupt the legal system. But I don't think it is a question of "digging" out. I think of it in JFK's Terms--"-Don't get mad, get even." But do it according to the Rule of Law. And that is exactly what is happening. A motion has been filed asking the New Jersey Federal Courts to declare that any actions authorized by Alina Habba in her utterly unlawful capacity as acting Deputy US Attorney are null and void; in the likely event that the Whistleblower statements are ignored and this F--the Courts Bove creature is confirmed, motions to recuse him from any case involved government policies especially but not exclusively on immigration are a certainty. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. The failure to uphold the law is not a failing of the legal system. It is a failure of the political system particularly the Senate and the members of one party in particular. Peter Finley Dunn provided the remedy: "It is not clear whether the Constitution follows the flag itis clear that the Supreme Court follows thee election returns."
You made my day.
There has just been another positive step. Several civil rights groups have filed a suit to prohibit ICE from attempting to arrest immigrants on Church Grounds. Over due but also a significant step to restoring the Rule of Law
I'm not so recently retired and I agree with everything you said.
Made worse by the fact that, while they are unprincipled, not all of them are third-rate.
obviously AI generated
Is there no penalty for lawyers like Bondi who file this trash in our court system and then lie about it? No referrals to some relevant organization for ethical review or censure?
The Fifth Fatal problem: Boasberg and Chief Justice Roberts are buddies from way back. Bondi wouldn't have done this if she was smart.
Good point and yes, she’s not particularly intelligent.
Third possible purpose -- to force recusal by Boesberg from DOJ cases.
DoJ will now use the fact that they filed a complaint to argue Judge Boasberg should be recused from any cases involving the administration.
They already asked for reassignment of cases in the complaint (item 2, p. 4):
III. Relief Requested
The Department of Justice respectfully requests that the Chief Judge take the following actions pursuant to Rules 5, 11, and 20 of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings:
1. Docket and refer this complaint to a special investigative committee under
Rule 11(f), as an inquiry is essential to determine whether Judge Boasberg’s
conduct constitutes “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious
administration of the business of the courts.”
2. Order interim corrective measures during the investigation, including reassignment
of all related J.G.G. v. Trump cases to another judge to prevent further erosion of
public confidence while the investigation proceeds.
What the DOJ did here calls to mind statements by the dissenting justices in 2024 in Alexander v. S.C. State Conf. of the NAACP (in which the majority knowingly violated our Constitution by pretending that "partisan gerrymandering" (segregating residents based on voters' political opinions (including their actual votes) did not violate our Constitution). Of course, partisan gerrymandering irrefutably violates "the freedom of speech" and "the right of the people" to "assemble," including for the purpose of choosing or removing our representatives. Violating such freedom and right necessarily is the precise point of partisan gerrymandering.
So the dissenting justices said, "The proper response to this case is not to throw up." They really did say that. But that really would be an extremely inaccurate characterization of what they said and meant. They said “[t]he proper response to this case is not to throw up novel roadblocks enabling” state legislators “to continue dividing citizens” in a manner that clearly violates our Constitution.
The dissent in Alexander also said more that was directly relevant to the DOJ's (or The Federalist) absurd complaint that Chief Judge Boasberg's statement somehow violated the "presumption of regularity" (which merely sometimes favors federal employees in some (actual) civil litigation).
The Alexander dissent responded to the majority's deceitful abuse of an unconstitutional “presumption” that state legislators acted in “good faith” (by making partisan gerrymandering extremely closely resemble racial gerrymandering). The dissent clarified that stating a “presumption” is just another way of saying who must “bear [what] burden of proof.” Crucially, a presumption favoring one party applies only when the opposing party must bear the burden of proof or burden of producing evidence. Federal law says something similar. See Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
As the Alexander dissent emphasized, at most, the “good faith” (or regularity) of government actors may be “presumed” only “until” some “showing” has been made that government actors acted illegally (violated our Constitution or other law). A “good-faith presumption” essentially “tells a court not to [merely] assume [government action] is flawed or to limit the [government's] opportunities to defend it.” Such “presumption may suggest sending a case to trial, rather than rejecting [government action] on summary judgment.”
A “presumption of good faith” favoring government employees also “reminds a court that it is a serious matter to find" purported public servants "in breach of the Constitution.” However, it is an even more serious matter for any purported public servant (including state legislators, SCOTUS justices, the president or DOJ attorneys) to knowingly violate our Constitution or knowingly help someone violate our Constitution. As Article VI emphasizes, our "Constitution" is "the supreme Law of the Land" and all legislators "and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States" are "bound" to "support" our "Constitution."
I prefer the truncated version of the "proper response."
So glad you wrote this - I read the 'complaint' earlier, and felt it was a(nother) blatant distraction by the Trump administration totally lacking in merit (thank you for the detailed analysis of its fatal flaws). Instead of relying on someone like the Chief Justice to take any responsibility to provide context or a possible retort, I've often wondered if it wouldn't be somehow possible to allow for punitive action to be taken by the judiciary in instances (like this one) when a demonstrably-frivolous filing is made. Of course, the bar for such a determination would necessarily be high, but it seems to me that giving such a tool to the judiciary would be vital in order to effectively address lawless, reckless (and dangerous!) behavior like we are witnessing with the current President's administration.
Now is our moment—take action against this harmful government. Covering up a pedophile ring. Ignoring court orders. Blatant corruption. The poor, the needy, and children are being abused—by our government. In the streets we must protest outright crooks and the pedophiles until after their shooting us starts, until we go down or we oust tyrants. I made 54 protest signs, and will make many more to share. You will see something different in these signs! Help yourself to this second batch, and share them as far as you can.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/free-protest-signs?r=3m1bs
Thank you professor Steve Vladek for speaking up and out. Because of you, Marc Elias, Joyce Vance, Norm Eisen, Adam Klasfeld, Katie Phang, Michael Popok et al we are becoming educated outspoken constituents of our hapless congress folks
Thank you. The flagrant disrespect for the judiciary displayed by DOJ and the Trump administration is staggering. Couple that with the incompetence, sycophancy and blind ambition of the lawyers in Trump’s ambit and we have a politicized body that will take down the rule of law with no qualms.
Delegitimize the federal courts? Looks to me more like an effort to delegitimize DOJ. Those folks are very much given to self-immolation these days.
Thanks. Unlike some who want to ignore the needs of the moment, Prof. Vladeck is tossing out red flags.
https://reason.com/volokh/2025/07/29/mistaking-adherence-to-formalist-principle-for-appeasement/
I actually LOL'd when reading Jonathan Adler's comment about how "we should not be so quick to ascribe political or prudential motives, when principled explanations suffice." As has been pointed out many times by Prof. Vladeck, the public is not able to determine if "principled explanations" are even being used when unsigned, unexplained decisions are shoved upon us one after the other. At least Adler added an "UPDATE:" that "more fulsome explanations of its various "shadow docket" orders" just MIGHT be a good idea....