Analysis: Does Leaked Memo Confirm Political Bias in Federal Judiciary?

Federal judges in district courts across the nation have been waging jurisprudential war against President Donald Trump and his administration for months, with the U.S. Supreme Court intervening on several occasions. But according to newly revealed documents, federal judges have allowed their political bias against the president to lead them to the brink of “constitutional crisis.”

In a memo obtained by The Federalist summarizing the March meeting of the Judicial Conference, Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, brought up “concerns” about how the president may respond to rulings against his executive actions.

The Judicial Conference is the official policy-making body of the federal courts, led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (in this case, John Roberts) and comprised of the chief judge of each court of appeals federal regional circuit, a district court judge from various federal judicial districts, and the chief judge of the United States Court of International Trade. According to the memo, Boasberg took the Judicial Conference’s meeting as an opportunity to “rais[e] his colleagues’ concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.” Roberts emphasized the “civil and respectful” interactions he had had with Trump and “expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize.”

Margot Cleveland, The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent, wrote of the memo’s significance, “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.” She explained, “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.”

Cleveland continued, “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).” She added, “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.”

Just days after raising his “concerns” to Roberts, Boasberg issued a sweeping temporary restraining order (TRO) barring the president from invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to arrest and deport Venezuelan nationals affiliated with the international criminal gang and foreign terrorist organization Tren de Aragua (TdA). The Supreme Court later quashed Boasberg’s order, which the Trump administration had complied with, and determined that the D.C. judge did not have the jurisdiction to issue his TRO. Late last month, the Supreme Court ruled that Boasberg and other district court judges cannot issue sweeping, nationwide injunctions and TROs.

However, Boasberg’s apparent display of political bias has raised its own concerns among Americans, including officials at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). Noting that Trump was, at the time of Boasberg’s remarks, a defendant in several cases before the court, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche warned, “This is a serious breach of the judicial oath and a threat to the rule of law. Every litigant, regardless of politics, is entitled to a fair forum.” DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle commented that the “troubling” report “perhaps explains the completely lawless order issued by Judge Boasberg…”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Article III Project Senior Counsel Will Chamberlain said, “Boasberg’s conduct is deeply damaging to the rule of law, and instead of worrying about whether the Trump administration will comply with his lawless orders (which they did), he should simply stop issuing lawless orders.” Chamberlain observed that, because of his political bias, “Boasberg should have recused himself before issuing his lawless ruling ordering planes to turn around in mid-air. There’s a reason the Supreme Court reversed him — he had no authority to rule on a habeas case when the complainants weren’t being held in his district.”

Hans Von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told TWS that the memo’s contents were “shocking.” He explained, “It shows an unacceptable bias by Judge Boasberg and his fellow judges that violates basic ethical standards since they are assuming, without evidence, misbehavior by government officials in active lawsuits before them. They are also violating the legal principle established by the Supreme Court that courts must presume that government officials will properly discharge their official duties.”

Von Spakovsky continued, “This memorandum explains the almost wholesale, biased, and unjustified judgments that have been rendered against the administration in this circuit. These judges should have recused themselves from all cases involving the administration given their blatant prejudice and bias and their failure to do so is a violation of the code of judicial ethics. The fact that the chief judge is the leader of this unethical misbehavior is grounds for serious disciplinary action.”

FRC Action Director Matt Carpenter said in comments to TWS, “What is shocking about this report is that federal judges, like Judge Boasberg, would so openly and clearly admit their own political bias against the President of the United States, Donald Trump.” He continued, “The American people have been subjected ad nauseam to the line that ‘no one is above the law!’ while leftist lawyers chase after any legal theory they can to take down their political opposition — usually President Trump.” Carpenter added, “Given what we know now about the intentions of so many federal judges, it’s fair to ask if these judges think they’re above the law themselves.”

“I have to wonder if Judge Boasberg’s alleged concern about a constitutional crisis if the president ignores one of the court rulings is him signaling his intention,” Carpenter posited. “The Left has painted the president falsely as a tyrant — what better way to score political points than to force a constitutional crisis and then smear him as a tyrant?” Carpenter added, “I don’t think any honest person can look at the long list of nationwide injunctions against actions taken by the president — clearly delineated from his constitutional authority to manage the personnel of the executive branch, or enforce federal law on immigration or trade, for example — and think judges like Judge Boasberg are acting in good faith to uphold the rule of law. This behavior is more like the rule of politics.”

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE: Students Call for an End to Pro-Abortion Judicial Activism

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The post Analysis: Does Leaked Memo Confirm Political Bias in Federal Judiciary? appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.