Federal judge James Boasberg advised Chief Justice John Roberts and some two dozen other judges that his D.C. colleagues were “concern[ed] that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis,” according to a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist. That Judge Boasberg and his fellow D.C. District Court judges would discuss how a named Defendant in numerous pending lawsuits might respond to an adverse ruling is shocking. Equally outrageous is those judges’ clear disregard for the presumption of regularity — a presumption that requires a court to presume public officials properly discharged their official duties.
During the week of March 11, 2025, members of the Judicial Conference met in Washington, D.C., for the first of its two regular meetings. As the U.S. Court’s webpage explains, “[t]he Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policymaking body for the federal courts.”
The Judicial Conference consists of Chief Justice Roberts, who presides over the body, as well as the chief judge of each judicial circuit, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and one district judge from each regional circuit, making for a group of approximately thirty judges. While the Judicial Conference mainstay is considering “administrative and policy issues affecting the federal court system,” and “mak[ing] recommendations to Congress concerning legislation involving the Judicial Branch,” a side conversation at the group’s most recent meeting revealed a disturbing detail — the predisposition of supposedly unbiased judges against the Trump Administration.
In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a “working breakfast” at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, “District of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.”
“Chief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,” according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that “his interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.”
Donald Trump, however, is not merely the president: He is a Defendant in scores of lawsuits, including multiple cases in the D.C. District Court. As such, this conversation did not concern generic concerns of the judiciary, but specific discussions about a litigant currently before the same judges who expressed concern to the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court that the Trump Administration would disregard the court’s orders.
Judge Boasberg’s comments reveal he and his colleagues hold an anti-Trump bias, for the Trump Administration had complied with every court order to date (and since for that matter). The D.C. District Court judges’ “concern” also went counter to the normal presumption courts hold — one that presumes public officials properly discharged their official duties. Apparently, that presumption does not apply to the current president, at least if you are litigating in D.C.
And what is both troubling and ironic is that only a few days later, Judge Boasberg, in a case in which he completely lacked jurisdiction, as the Supreme Court would later confirm, entered a lawless order commanding the Trump Administration to halt removals to El Salvador. So, one of the judges concerned about Trump following the law, ignored the law. Nonetheless, Judge Boasberg would later find “the Trump Administration committed criminal contempt of court” by failing to turn the planes around or fly the gang members back to the U.S., even though the court’s written (and unlawful) injunction ordered neither.
As I said at the time, the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court seemed hellbent on finding the Trump Administration in contempt. It would seem, we now know why: Judge Boasberg and his colleagues prejudged Trump as a scofflaw. The reality, though, is the president has shown great restraint in the face of an avalanche of lawless lower court orders.
In fact, recently released emails related to the case before Judge Boasberg confirm the Trump Administration’s intent was and remains to obey all court orders — even those lawless ones. Those emails came to light after a whistleblower made spurious allegations against Emil Bove, whom Trump has nominated to serve on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Bove served as the principal associate deputy attorney general at the time the DOJ was representing the Trump Administration before Judge Boasberg. While the whistleblower claimed Bove suggested the DOJ ignore court orders to advance the Trump Administration’s agenda, an email obtained by The Federalist on Friday disproved the claim.
In that email, the whistleblower’s supervisor wrote that the legal team was “called to a meeting with the Deputy Attorney General,” at which Bove “advised our team that we must avoid a court order halting an upcoming operation to implement the Act at all costs.”
As Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, noted yesterday, “Bove telling subordinate DOJ litigators, in advance of anticipated litigation, to avoid a court order that negatively impacts a mission is inconsistent with instructions to outright ignore a court order, and entirely consistent with Bove’s sworn testimony.” And at his confirmation hearing, Bove, under oath, attested that he has “never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order.” But as Justice Alito reminded Americans a mere month after the Judicial Conference attended by Judge Boasberg concluded, “[b]oth the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.” The Trump Administration has been doing its part, but the lower courts remain rabid in their attack on the rule of law — and now we know that at least some judges are likewise flouting their obligation to remain impartial or recuse from the case when they aren’t.
Margot Cleveland is an investigative journalist and legal analyst and serves as The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. Margot’s work has been published at The Wall Street Journal, The American Spectator, the New Criterion, National Review Online, Townhall.com, the Daily Signal, USA Today, and the Detroit Free Press.
She is also a regular guest on nationally syndicated radio programs and on Fox News, Fox Business, and Newsmax. Cleveland is a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school’s highest honor. She later served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Cleveland is a former full-time university faculty member and now teaches as an adjunct from time to time. Cleveland is also of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
Cleveland is on Twitter at @ProfMJCleveland where you can read more about her greatest accomplishments—her dear husband and dear son. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.
