In a surprising legal move, U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg halted efforts by President Donald Trump to utilize wartime powers for deporting members of the Tren de Aragua gang to El Salvador.
The Daily Caller reported that the case has sparked a heated debate over the limits of presidential authority and the implications of judicial impartiality.
Furthermore, legal experts are questioning why Boasberg hasn't recused himself from the case, considering his daughter's work in an organization dedicated to fighting deportations.
The controversy began when Judge Boasberg, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011, issued a temporary injunction against the deportation flights on March 15, 2025. By the time of his decision, however, three planes carrying deportees had already landed in El Salvador.
The emergency measure taken by President Trump involved invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a seldom-used law that allowed the deportation of these individuals whom the administration identified as threats.
This judicial intervention raised questions about the judge's connections, particularly concerning his daughter, Katharine Boasberg, who works for Partners in Justice.
The organization supports immigrants and opposes deportations and had recently removed Katharine’s biography from their website following her father's assignment to the case. Critics argue that these familial ties should have prompted Judge Boasberg to recuse himself to maintain the impartiality of the judiciary.
Attorney General Pam Bondi strongly criticized the judge's decision, citing public safety concerns and the undermining of established presidential powers.
The Trump administration, expressing growing frustration, appealed the judge’s order and requested his reassignment, accusing him of improper procedures and rash decision-making in sensitive matters.
Amidst the legal turmoil, President Trump took to social media to articulate his concerns, suggesting that the ruling could potentially risk the country's future by limiting his ability to expel recognized criminals. His tweet encapsulated the administration’s perspective that surpassing such judicial barriers is essential for maintaining national security.
On the other side, Hans von Spakovsky, a legal scholar, supported the notion that Judge Boasberg’s impartiality was compromised, stating, "Given that his daughter works directly for an organization that opposes deportation of aliens and has supported Judge Boasberg’s actions, the impartiality of his judgment is open to be reasonably questioned.”
He added that the judge should have indeed stepped aside due to the direct involvement of his immediate family in advocacy against the policy in question.
Conversely, Richard Painter, a former chief White House ethics lawyer, presented a nuanced point that, generally, the employment of an adult child in a related field does not necessitate recusal unless directly involved in the representation of a party.
He stressed, “The involvement of an adult child’s employee in a matter is not sufficient grounds for recusal, but the involvement of the adult child herself is.”
Further complicating the scenario, Judge Boasberg has been known to oversee other sensitive cases, including those involving military operations discussed covertly among high-ranking officials, which required judicious consultations and utmost discretion.
These instances display the judge’s familiarity and handling of high-stakes national security matters despite the contentious nature of some decisions.
The unfolding event has led Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley to propose legislation aimed at curtailing the influence of federal courts on executive decisions.
Matt O'Brien, a commentator on immigration law, criticized Judge Boasberg's actions not for bias, but for judicial activism. He argued that the judge overstepped his bounds by engaging in policymaking – a role reserved for the Executive Branch and Congress – thus disrupting the constitutional equilibrium of the U.S. government.