The Trump administration’s legal battles, particularly concerning the deportation of individuals to El Salvador, have sparked unprecedented clashes with federal judges. Two judges, James Boasberg and Paula Xinis, found themselves at the center of these conflicts, facing what a former federal judge describes as ‘relentless bad behavior’ from government attorneys. Judge Boasberg even went so far as to find probable cause to hold administration officials in criminal contempt for their willful disregard of his orders halting deportation flights.
This unprecedented level of conflict raises serious questions about the appropriate conduct within the courtroom. A former federal judge, John E. Jones III, shared his perspective, highlighting the traditional reverence for federal courts and the expected decorum. He emphasizes the importance of deference to the court, adherence to professional ethics, and respectful interaction, even amidst disagreements. The current situation, he notes, is a stark departure from this established norm, with government attorneys treating life-appointed judges as mere obstacles.
The attacks extended beyond simple courtroom disagreements. Trump administration officials, including Stephen Miller and President Trump himself, publicly disparaged judges Boasberg and Xinis, labeling them with inflammatory terms. Attorney General Pam Bondi even accused Judge Boasberg of protecting terrorists, a statement the former judge considers highly unusual and unethical.
This behavior places government attorneys in a difficult position, as illustrated by the unfortunate case of a DOJ attorney who was suspended and ultimately fired for simply fulfilling their duty of candor to the court. The former judge underscores the expectation of professionalism and a high standard of legal expertise in federal court, emphasizing that disrespect, disingenuousness, and unresponsiveness to the court are unacceptable.
The situations faced by Judges Boasberg and Xinis are interconnected. Judge Boasberg’s contempt finding stemmed from a series of actions, including the midnight signing and delayed publication of the president’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation and the continued deportation flights despite his order to halt them. Judge Xinis, meanwhile, faces ongoing challenges in ensuring the government complies with the Supreme Court’s order to ‘facilitate’ the return of a wrongly deported man. The former judge believes the government’s deliberate obstruction and tendency to immediately appeal any unfavorable ruling reveals a pattern of disregard for judicial authority.
The former judge’s personal experience underscores the gravity of the situation. In his 19.5 years on the bench, he never once issued a criminal contempt citation. He views Judge Boasberg’s decision to pursue criminal contempt as a necessary step to uphold the court’s authority, even acknowledging the possibility of a presidential pardon. The former judge concludes by highlighting the significance of vindicating the court’s authority, regardless of the executive branch’s potential response.
