Whitehouse Urges Attorney General to Publicly Release Results of Disciplinary Complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg

Department of Justice filed a bogus disciplinary complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg in July as part of pressure campaign targeting judges who have ruled against Trump administration

Washington, D.C. - Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, sent a letter yesterday to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking her to disclose, as soon as possible, the result of the Department of Justice's disciplinary complaint against Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Chief Judge Boasberg, a distinguished federal judge who has found the Trump administration in violation of federal law in several high-profile cases, has been the target of a coordinated campaign of threats by the MAGA movement and the Trump administration. These threats appear intended to intimidate Chief Judge Boasberg from examining potential contempt of court by the MAGA Department of Justice. Last week, Federal Courts Subcommittee Chairman Ted Cruz (R-TX) held a hearingcalling for the impeachment of Chief Judge Boasberg, during which allegations from the complaint were amplified.

"Your Department of Justice filed a disciplinary complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg on July 28, 2025. As you know, I believe that complaint was unfounded and without merit. It appears to be part of a campaign to harass and threaten Chief Judge Boasberg as he investigates whether your Department committed contempt of court and requires your team to answer questions under oath versus on X,"Whitehouse wrote to the Attorney General in the new letter.

"It is my understanding that the resolution of a disciplinary complaint such as yours is not released publicly until any reconsideration request is final, but it is released to the complainant after an initial decision is made. I would therefore request that you disclose the results of your disciplinary complaint as soon as those results are disclosed to you," continued Whitehouse.

"Should the result of your complaint be its dismissal, or a finding of no misconduct, then continued use of your complaint as a rhetorical weapon to bring pressure against a federal judge would be both improper and unfounded," added the Senator.

In July 2025, the Justice Department filed a complaint against Chief Judge Boasberg alleging that, at the Judicial Conference's March 2025 meeting, Chief Judge Boasberg privately conveyed to the Judicial Conference his colleagues' concerns that the Trump Administration might defy court orders. In April 2025, Chief Judge Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings into the Justice Department's potential defiance of court orders in J.G.G. v. Trump. Chief Judge Boasberg found probable cause that the Trump Administration had committed criminal contempt of court by willfully disobeying his court order to immediately halt unlawful deportations. Several credible whistleblower complaints have since alleged that Emil Bove, the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, instructed Justice Department attorneys to be prepared to tell courts-including in the J.G.G. case-"f*** you" if they ruled against the government.

Shortly after Chief Judge Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, suspended the contempt proceedings over a dissent by a third judge on the panel. The two Trump-appointed judges stalled the contempt proceeding for over three months, just enough time for Senate Republicans to confirm Emil Bove to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit on a 50-49 vote, without any judicial record of his possible contempt of court. After the full D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, Judge Rao and Judge Justin Walker, another Trump appointee, further stalled the contempt proceeding in a ruling last month.

Whitehouse has repeatedly spotlighted this bizarre series of events involving the MAGA Department of Justice, Trump-appointed judges, and Republicans in Congress targeting Chief Judge Boasberg. In July, Whitehouse and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) wrote a letter to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, urging him to look into the extraordinarily long administrative stay issued by the two Trump-appointed judges blocking the investigation of Emil Bove and other Department of Justice lawyers' potential contempt of court. Whitehouse sent a similar letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts alerting him to the troubling series of events.

Whitehouse, Blumenthal, and Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA) also filed a FOIA request to the Department of Justice demanding records and communications between the Department of Justice, the Trump-appointed judges, and their staff related to the delay of Chief Judge Boasberg's contempt of court proceedings.

The text of the letter is below and a PDF is available here.

January 12, 2026

The Honorable Pam Bondi
Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Attorney General Bondi:

Your Department of Justice filed a disciplinary complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg on July 28, 2025. As you know, I believe that complaint was unfounded and without merit. It appears to be part of a campaign to harass and threaten Chief Judge Boasberg as he investigates whether your Department committed contempt of court and requires your team to answer questions under oath versus on X.

Last week, at a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing that I contend was another part of that pressure campaign, a member of the Subcommittee read long portions of your complaint into the record, as if it were true or meritorious.

It is my understanding that the resolution of a disciplinary complaint such as yours is not released publicly until any reconsideration request is final, but it is released to the complainant after an initial decision is made. I would therefore request that you disclose the results of your disciplinary complaint as soon as those results are disclosed to you.

Should the result of your complaint be its dismissal, or a finding of no misconduct, then continued use of your complaint as a rhetorical weapon to bring pressure against a federal judge would be both improper and unfounded. I'm sure you wouldn't want that. Therefore, since clarification of the results of your complaint once you know them would be in the public interest, I request that you disclose them as soon as you know.

Sincerely,