🔥🔥🔥Exclusive: DC Judges admit bias against Trump Administration at Judicial Conference before Chief Justice Roberts! 1/
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 16, 2025
2/ @FDRLST https://t.co/UPWquH10tm
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) July 16, 2025
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.