‘Out of Control Judge’: Bondi Urges Supreme Court to Step In
Attorney General Pam Bondi is demanding action from the Supreme Court, claiming that the federal judge presiding over the Signal group chat case is biased. “He cannot be objective,” Bondi said, asserting that “many judges need to be removed.”
Bondi criticized the assignment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to the high-profile Signal case—where Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Vice President Vance, and other officials allegedly discussed a military operation against Houthi rebels in Yemen—as a “wild coincidence against Donald Trump and our administration.”
The chat became public after Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, reportedly received it by mistake, sparking widespread controversy.
Judge Boasberg has previously ruled against the Trump administration in a separate case involving Venezuelan migrants allegedly linked to the Tren de Aragua gang who were being deported.
In that case, Boasberg insisted that deportation flights should be reversed to allow court review. Bondi reacted strongly: “He shouldn’t be on any of these cases. He cannot be objective. He’s made that crystal clear.”
Boasberg is currently overseeing four lawsuits related to Trump’s second term, including the Signal case. All of the cases were reportedly assigned to him through a random selection process.
The group American Oversight filed the lawsuit related to the Signal chat, claiming that Trump officials violated the Federal Records Act by failing to preserve Signal messages about the Yemen strike.
Recently, a federal appeals court temporarily stopped Judge Boasberg’s contempt proceedings against the Trump administration over deportation flights to El Salvador carried out last month.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a split decision, emphasizing that the stay was meant to give the court time to assess the administration’s appeal and should “not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits of that motion.”
This order pauses Boasberg’s attempts to hold officials from the Trump administration in contempt.
Boasberg had alleged there was probable cause, characterizing the administration’s refusal to reverse the March 15 deportations as “a willful disregard” of his order—even though the case had already been transferred from his court to a federal court in Texas by the Supreme Court.
The three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit split 2-1. Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both appointed by Trump, sided with the administration. Judge Cornelia Pillard, appointed by Obama, dissented.
“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 in her dissent, as reported by The Hill.
Judge Boasberg, also an Obama appointee, has drawn criticism from Trump in recent weeks. Last month, he blocked the administration from using the Alien Enemies Act to quickly deport alleged Venezuelan MS-13 gang members to a high-security prison in El Salvador. Trump has labeled MS-13 a terrorist group and designated them as enemy combatants.
Although the Supreme Court later overturned Boasberg’s ruling—clarifying that detained migrants must file legal challenges in the jurisdictions where they are held—Boasberg continued contempt proceedings. He argued that his original order was valid until the high court officially nullified it, The Hill noted.
The D.C. Circuit’s decision came just as Boasberg was pulled into a new legal battle over deportation flights. The ruling came shortly after Boasberg held an emergency hearing in response to a request from the ACLU, which sought to stop what it called an imminent new round of deportations to El Salvador.
During the hearing, Boasberg said, “I am sympathetic to everything you’re saying. I just don’t, I think, I have the power to do anything,” signaling his reluctance to block the deportations.
Before reaching his decision, Boasberg questioned DOJ attorney Drew Ensign about whether deportations were imminent. Ensign replied that although no flights were scheduled, the Department of Homeland Security retained the authority to proceed with removals on Saturday.
Early Saturday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a temporary order halting deportations of certain immigrants potentially targeted under the Alien Enemies Act. The stay affects a group of Venezuelan nationals in Texas who allege the Trump administration is seeking to expel them without due process.
The court’s brief order included no reasoning and was opposed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
Attorneys representing the migrants filed an emergency appeal on Friday, arguing that their clients were at risk of deportation without proper notice or the ability to challenge the action. CNN reported that the justices instructed the Trump administration to respond after the Fifth Circuit in Louisiana takes further action in thecase.
“The government is directed not to remove any member of the putative class of detainees from the United States until further order of this court,” the justices wrote.