President Donald Trump is not a fan of judges who oppose him. During his first term he attacked the famous Judge Amy Berman Jackson. Amy Berman Jackson declared his ally and advisor, Roger Stone.
Now, Trump just ratcheted his attack on the judge. The feud reached a new high water mark after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to halt the deportation of certain Venezuelan immigrants. Boasberg also forced the administration on the timing of a flight from the US to El Salvador, where immigrants were transferred to mega prisons.
In response, Trump called Boasberg “a radical left-madman of judges, troublemakers and agitators.” In concert, Attorney General Pam Bondy said the judge “has no right” to ask about the flight. A similar line of attack is used by an array of Trump administration officials and allies.
For more information about Trump's grem with the judge, please see I explained todayco-host Sean Ramswaram spoke with Kate Shaw. She is a professor at the Carrie Law School at the University of Pennsylvania and co-host of the Law Podcast Strict scrutiny.
Click on the link below to listen to the entire conversation. Below are transcripts edited for length and clarity.
Kate, what's going on with Trump and the judge?
Trump has been significantly worsened in lawsuits over the past two months. He's on a truly impressive losing streak. He is three zero in the Court of Appeals when trying to defend the constitutionality of his executive order on birthright citizenship. He loses when he challenges Elon Musk's role in government and various aspects of Doge's work. In two cases so far, he lost both in both procedural issues at the very early stages in two cases arriving at the Supreme Court.
He has won several wins in the lower courts, but most are on procedural issues. So he's lost a lot and he's clearly really unhappy about it.
And perhaps the biggest controversy in all losses is this situation in El Salvador.
I think that's what Trump is most furious. That seems obvious, right? And the administration summoned this 1798 law: the alien enemies committed acts. It has been used three times in wartime: 1812, World War I, World War II.
Now they are trying to argue that this Venezuelan gangster, Tren de Aragua, is working together in some way in the Venezuelan government in a way that would make him an actor in a state that is basically engaged in active hostility. That's [reasoning] Invoking this old law, it allows individuals to be designated as alien enemies and essentially expelled into this prison in El Salvador.
It is being challenged and is in front of this judge, Judge Boasberg. Although several preliminary decisions have been made, it is clear that the administration will be greatly lost before Judge Boasberg. This is what I think Trump was most spun based on his social media.
He has taken over the truth socially, and essentially called for Boasberg to be bounced each. He calls him a radical left-madman of judges, troublemakers and agitators. I don't know this judge, but no, that's not his exact characterization.
He was placed in DC District Court by George W. Bush and then in district court by President Obama. He was also designated by Judge John Roberts to serve the Foreign Intelligence Report Surveillance Court. This is not a judge who is somehow radical leftist.
It's a ridiculous feature, but seeking his bounce each based on this series of rulings is a major escalation of the way Trump has spoken and acted towards the judiciary.
Wanting for a judge's bullet each – is it reserved for Judge Boasberg, or does it apply to many of these court battles facing the Trump administration??
He criticizes federal judges. I think others are looking for other ammo each, including musk. I think this might be the first Trump wanted. [impeachment] He himself.
How will the judge fight back when the president or everyone is the Vice President of the Office calls for each?
That's a good question, and the judges have very limited things they can do. They cannot take public communication channels. They don't have a bully pulpit in the presidential way. They can't do anything in their own defense: tweets, skeets, truths. They have a lot of power in a very limited domain.
He defends himself in the public opinion court, but he could also end up defending himself in the actual US Congress that actually opposes ammo each.
How often do you see judges being fired each? Let me remind you.
It's quite rare. There were 15 bullets each of the federal judges. Of these, only eight were found guilty.
The blast each is a two-stage process. If the majority of the House of Representatives voted to approve one or more perm each articles against them, someone says they were perm each. It just requires a simple majority in the house, and then colloquially, we say that the person was bounced each.
But they only actually go to the other House of Representatives, the Senate, and that's where the actual trial takes place. To actually convict someone in a Senate trial, it takes a two-thirds of a large majority, which will result in them being removed from office.
Therefore, the bluff each is the first half of the two-stage constitutional process. And while 67 votes in the Senate are very difficult to see as ever, it doesn't seem impossible for me to see a federal judge actually be subject to actual ammo each proceedings in the House.
But it is still being regenerated within the boundaries of what is legally acceptable. What if they openly ignore the court? This is a flight to Boasberg and El Salvador, which is at risk in this case. Is there any concrete evidence that it happened?
i don't think so. I think we're close. [There’s] This delicate dance in front of Judge Boasberg. The administration suggests that it follows a narrow thing – and I think it's probably wrong, but at least in legal language, it's defensible – the argument that they weren't the subject of this order. They were not against the order and were trying to comply with the order.
So they have not told the court at least. You essentially have no power over us. They might be a little closer to that. I think it's important that they continue to have legal arguments and that they continue to sue. In a way, I think the actual red lights will stop doing it and start flashing if you simply don't follow it.
I think they are more likely to do that here than in the context of the challenge to dismantling orders targeting USAID or the Department of Education or law firms. When the president is making a claim on national security, the president's power is always understood to be at the top of it, so they believe that the courts have the most powerful legal position to suggest that they have no power over them here. [compared to] Other spaces where it is clear that the courts have absolutely the power to review and that it is possible to invalidate what the administrative department did.
Interestingly, one of the sources of its enormous enforcement comes from Secretary John Roberts, who helped expand the country's views on presidential authority last year. But in this case there's a bit of tension there, especially when it comes to this fight between Trump and this DC judge, Boasberg.
Yeah. As you referenced last July 1st, Roberts wrote this opinion, granting the president and ex-president a new authority cleaning up and immunity.
And I think this depends on virtually everything we've seen in the last two months in terms of these extravagant enforcement agencies and these extravagant claims of light-heartedness, on the idea that a court or an outside agency can act like checking the president.
In it there is a line between some of the explanations of the president's power Trump vs. United States The case and the plight we found ourselves. So I think John Roberts has a lot of responsibility for the way the administration coordinated itself.
It's interesting that Roberts shaking after Trump [suggested] About the true society that Boasberg should be fired each. Roberts has issued this very unusual statement, something like President Trump's rebel.
The Supreme Court rarely contests political conflicts other than to publish his views. So he was clearly worried enough to speak.
Has there been a response from the Trump administration?
I think there was something common that didn't name it Roberts. perhaps [Roberts’s statement] It landed in some way. I don't know that the White House wants to be directly and explicitly hostile to John Roberts, at least now. And up to the point before, it suggests that they still live in the land of the law in some way. And I think that's important.
