Watchdog: Ethics complaint against Obama judge was not properly investigated

An ethics complaint against United States District Court Judge James Boasberg was not properly investigated, a conservative watchdog appealing its dismissal claims.

The Center to Advance Security in America (CASA) says its complaint was improperly dismissed by 6th Circuit Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton in December, arguing in their appeal filed Thursday that he did not follow the proper procedures.

“We believe it was totally inappropriate to do so and are filing this petition for review by the judicial council for a review of the opinion,” CASA Director James Fitzpatrick said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We believe Boasberg has violated several canons of the judicial code, that his actions collectively show a bias against the Trump administration and its officials, and that he should be investigated and disciplined accordingly for his outrageous, politically biased conduct.”

Boasberg, an Obama appointee who serves as the chief judge for the federal district court in Washington, D.C, demonstrated “political bias” against President Donald Trump and “enabled certain facets of what may be one of the biggest scandals in the history of the country,” CASA alleged in its November 2025 complaint. The complaint cites Boasberg’s 2023 approval of nondisclosure orders that prevented Republican members of Congress from knowing their cell phone records had been secretly subpoenaed by the Biden Department of Justice (DOJ).

Former special counsel Jack Smith’s subpoenaed nearly a dozen Republican lawmakers for “detailed records for inbound and outbound calls, text messages, direct connect, and voicemail messages” between Jan. 4 and Jan. 7, 2021, as well as nearly three months worth of former Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy’s records. Verizon complied but AT&T questioned a subpoena for Republican Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s records.

Boasberg also expressed “concerning views” at the March 2025 Judicial Conference of the United States that the Trump administration “would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis,” CASA’s original complaint noted.

“The complaint is based on allegations that are capable of being established through investigation and the Memorandum and Order does not state otherwise,” CASA wrote in its appeal. “Indeed, the facts would be easily provable, given that congressional and court records establish most of the facts. Additionally, an interview of those attending the conference, or who organized the conference, where Boasberg made his comments, could verify the facts too.”

Even if Boasberg made the statement attributed to him at the March conference, Sutton argued it would not be “prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.”

“A key point of the Judicial Conference and the related meetings is to facilitate candid conversations about judicial administration among leaders of the federal judiciary about matters of common concern,” Sutton wrote in his dismissal. “In these settings, a judge’s expression of anxiety about executive branch compliance with judicial orders, whether rightly feared or not, is not so far afield from customary topics at these meetings—judicial independence, judicial security, and inter-branch relations—as to violate the Codes of Judicial Conduct.”

The complaint also did not “explain in any detail the judge’s role in approving the nondisclosure orders or his relationship to the subpoenas” or “why it showed bias,” according to Sutton.

“Stripped of its conclusory accusations, this attack comes down to a critique of the judge’s rulings on the merits,” he wrote. “But complainants, to repeat, may not use the judicial-misconduct process to relitigate the results of hearings and investigations.”

A complaint can only be dismissed when it “is not in conformity with section 351(a), is directly related to the merits or a procedural ruling, or is ‘frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or containing allegation which are incapable of being established through investigation,” CASA wrote in its appeal asking the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council to review Sutton’s dismissal.

Republican Texas Rep. Brandon Gill filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg in November after his role in approving nondisclosure orders for the Arctic Frost investigation, which became Smith’s 2020 election case against President Donald Trump, was revealed.

Gill also filed articles of impeachment in March after Boasberg ordered the government to turn around planes carrying alleged gang members to El Salvador.

Boasberg attempted in December to hold contempt hearings featuring current and former officials to investigate whether the government willfully violated his March order, but an appeals court put a temporary hold on the hearings at the DOJ’s request.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early January, several Republicans called for his impeachment.

“He is a rogue Judge,” Republican Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt said. “The House should vote to impeach Judge Boasberg based on the articles they have before them. Once the House impeaches, we should hold the trial and hold Judge Boasberg accountable.”

An impeachment vote has not yet been held. A special assistant to Boasberg did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.