Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a complaint filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) against U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, appointee of former President Barack Obama, for “improper public comments” made about President Donald Trump and the administration.

Newsweek reached out to a legal analyst via X, formerly Twitter, on Monday night for comment.

Why It Matters

Boasberg has been at the center of MAGA fury as he has presided over a case involving the Trump administration’s speedy deportation of migrants through his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.

The act is a wartime law granting the commander in chief authority to detain or deport noncitizens. The implementation was blocked in federal court and has thus sparked a contentious legal back-and-forth with Boasberg, a chief judge.

What To Know

According to the Associated Press (AP), Boasberg’s alleged remarks stem from comments he made to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges that the Trump administration could trigger a constitutional crisis if they intentionally sidestep rulings.

“Today at my direction, @TheJusticeDept filed a misconduct complaint against U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration. These comments have undermined the integrity of the judiciary, and we will not stand for that,” Bondi said on X.

Boasberg’s comments were reportedly made at a meeting of the Judicial Conference, as first reported by The Federalist, citing a memo obtained of the meeting.

According to the AP, Bondi’s complaint calls for Boasberg to be reassigned from the deportation case amid the investigation and possible impeachment if the allegations are substantiated.

Trump previously called Boasberg a “troublemaker and agitator” and floated the suggestion of his impeachment earlier this year, prompting Roberts to issue a rare statement.

“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” Roberts said.

What Happens Next

The complaint now awaits review by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan and could be referred to a special investigative committee for further examination.

Bigger questions about judicial independence, the limits of executive authority over immigration policy and the standards for disqualification or sanctioning of federal judges may also be shaped by the developments in this closely watched dispute.