🔴 Website 👉 https://u-s-news.com/
Telegram 👉 https://t.me/usnewscom_channel
Federal Judge James Boasberg’s attendance at a partisan Democrat strategy session disguised as a judicial conference reveals a troubling conflict of interest as he continues to block Trump’s deportation of illegal alien gang members.
At a Glance
- Judge James Boasberg attended a conference at the Rodel Institute’s Judicial Fellowship, widely perceived as a Democrat strategy session with an agenda mirroring leftist campaign rhetoric about “saving democracy”
- A judicial ethics report disclosed Boasberg’s attendance but suspiciously omitted details on payment or reimbursement, despite federal requirements to disclose such information
- The Rodel Institute is funded by foundations supporting anti-Trump initiatives and staffed primarily with Trump critics
- Boasberg has blocked Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants suspected of gang membership, leading to calls for his impeachment
- House Republicans, including Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, are planning hearings and legislation to address Boasberg’s rulings and the broader issue of judicial overreach
Judicial Ethics Report Raises Partisan Concerns
A newly uncovered judicial ethics report has raised serious questions about Judge James Boasberg’s impartiality after revealing his attendance at what appears to be a Democrat strategy session disguised as a judicial conference. The Sun Valley, Idaho event, organized as part of the Rodel Institute’s Judicial Fellowship, featured an agenda that suspiciously mirrored Democratic campaign rhetoric about “saving democracy” – the same talking points Democrats have used to attack President Trump.
While the ethics report confirmed Boasberg’s attendance, it conspicuously omitted any details about whether the judge received payment or reimbursement for his participation. This lack of transparency is particularly troubling given that federal judges are required by law to disclose both financial and programmatic information when they receive reimbursements exceeding $480.
https://t.co/Vp7indzdyz
Judge James Boasberg of the D.C. District Court, who blocked President Trump’s deportation efforts for illegal gang members, attended a partisan legal conference that raised ethical concerns. The conference, linked to the Rodel Institute, featured themes…— The America One News (@am1_news) March 24, 2025
The Rodel Institute’s Anti-Trump Connections
A deeper examination of the Rodel Institute reveals concerning partisan affiliations. The organization is primarily funded by foundations known for supporting various anti-Trump initiatives, and its Board of Directors and faculty advisors consist almost exclusively of individuals who have publicly criticized President Trump. When approached about these connections and Boasberg’s involvement, the judge declined to respond to inquiries about his attendance or potential reimbursement.
“Called a ‘Privately Funded Seminar Disclosure Report,” the document discloses that Boasberg was in attendance but offers no details of whether Boasberg was paid for his attendance or travel, or what the remuneration was,” reports Just the News.
A retired Democrat-appointed judge who alerted media to the conference expressed concern that the event’s focus on “judges’ role in a democracy” aligned too closely with Democratic Party messaging to be considered politically neutral. This admission from a Democrat-appointed judge underscores the partisan nature of Boasberg’s extracurricular activities.
Blocking Trump’s Immigration Enforcement
The revelation about Boasberg’s partisan activities comes at a particularly problematic time, as he currently presides over high-profile cases directly impacting President Trump’s policies. Most notably, Boasberg has blocked the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan immigrants suspected of gang membership to El Salvador – a crucial component of Trump’s border security strategy.
“The president has to comply with the Constitution and the laws like anyone else,” stated Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millett during appellate arguments, seemingly ignoring that the law in question – the Alien Enemies Act – explicitly grants the president broad authority during national emergencies.
In his ruling, Boasberg mandated that illegal immigrants must have the opportunity to challenge their designations as gang members before deportation – effectively hamstringing Trump’s efforts to quickly remove dangerous criminals from American communities. The Justice Department has argued that Boasberg’s intervention represents an unprecedented intrusion on executive powers, noting that the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II specifically to address the national security threat posed by gang members entering through the southern border.
Congressional Response and Potential Consequences
President Trump has called for Boasberg’s impeachment, and House Republicans are planning hearings to investigate his decisions related to deportation flights. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan has expressed serious concerns about judges using nationwide injunctions to obstruct Trump’s policies, a pattern that has emerged repeatedly throughout Trump’s presidency.
“Everything is on the table,” said Speaker Mike Johnson regarding potential actions against judges who rule against Trump’s administration, signaling that impeachment remains a viable option for addressing judicial overreach.
Representative Darrell Issa has introduced the “No Rogue Rulings Act,” legislation designed to limit judges’ power to issue nationwide injunctions that block presidential actions. This proposal represents a significant step toward reining in activist judges who substitute their political preferences for the law.
While Chief Justice John Roberts has predictably stated that impeachment is not an appropriate response to legal disagreements, the confluence of Boasberg’s partisan activities and his decisions that directly obstruct Trump’s immigration enforcement suggests this is far more than a mere difference of legal interpretation. It reveals a pattern of behavior that raises legitimate questions about whether Boasberg’s rulings stem from impartial legal analysis or partisan political allegiance.