Attorney General Pam Bondi didn’t mince words when calling out the latest example of judicial bias in Washington, D.C. On Friday, Bondi openly criticized the assignment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to preside over yet another lawsuit targeting President Donald Trump’s administration, this time related to encrypted Signal messages involving senior Trump officials.

“He shouldn’t be on any of these cases. He cannot be objective. He’s made that crystal clear,” Bondi declared.

The case stems from a leaked Signal group chat between Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other Trump officials discussing strategic strikes on Houthi rebel targets in Yemen. The messages somehow ended up in the hands of The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg, raising serious concerns about national security leaks and media collusion.

Now, a left-wing watchdog group — American Oversight — is suing the administration, alleging officials violated the Federal Records Act by failing to preserve encrypted messages. And in what Bondi called a “wild coincidence,” Judge Boasberg has been assigned to oversee the case.

Boasberg, an Obama appointee, has repeatedly been placed in a position to undermine the Trump administration. His previous rulings, including one attempting to block deportations of Venezuelan nationals with alleged gang affiliations, have drawn harsh criticism from the president and senior officials.

Boasberg’s judgment in that case was so controversial it was overturned by the Supreme Court, which found that the migrants in question must file legal appeals in the jurisdictions where they are being held — not in D.C. Nevertheless, Boasberg continued pushing contempt proceedings against the administration.

“Many judges need to be removed,” Bondi added, slamming what she described as a judicial system “stacked with partisan activists pretending to be impartial arbiters.”

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocked Boasberg’s contempt push on Friday, with a 2–1 ruling. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by President Trump, sided with the administration. The lone dissenter, Judge Cornelia Pillard, is yet another Obama appointee.

Pillard’s dissent, according to The Hill, argued that there was no legal basis for halting Boasberg’s contempt threat:

“In the absence of an appealable order or any clear and indisputable right to relief that would support mandamus, there is no ground for an administrative stay,” Pillard wrote.

Judge Boasberg’s record speaks for itself. He previously blocked President Trump’s efforts to utilize the Alien Enemies Act for swift deportation of foreign nationals linked to violent transnational gangs, including members of the Tren de Aragua and MS-13, whom Trump has correctly designated as foreign combatants and terrorists.

Despite the Supreme Court’s rebuke, Boasberg has continued to act as a judicial resistance fighter, asserting that his orders still apply — even though the case was moved out of his jurisdiction and remanded to Texas federal court.

Meanwhile, Boasberg has now been randomly assigned to four separate lawsuits targeting Trump’s second term, including the Signal case. That so-called “random” process is looking more like political targeting with every passing day.

In yet another example of liberal activism masquerading as lawfare, the ACLU is already pushing Boasberg to block upcoming deportation flights to El Salvador, calling them an “imminent threat.” Boasberg held an emergency hearing Friday on their request — just as the D.C. Circuit blocked his contempt push.

As Bondi pointed out, this isn’t about justice — it’s about stacking the deck.

“This is not a coincidence. This is coordinated. And the American people see right through it,” she said.

With judges like Boasberg turning courtrooms into political battlefields, it's no wonder trust in the judicial system is at an all-time low.