Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

James E. Boasberg

From Ballotpedia
(Redirected from James Boasberg)
Jump to: navigation, search
James E. Boasberg
Image of James E. Boasberg

Nonpartisan

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Tenure

2011 - Present

Years in position

14

Prior offices
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

Education

Bachelor's

Yale College, 1985

Graduate

University of Oxford, 1986

Law

Yale Law School, 1990

Personal
Birthplace
San Francisco, Calif.
Contact

Official website

James Emanuel Boasberg is the chief judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He joined the court in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama (D). Boasberg became chief judge of the court on March 17, 2023.[1]

Boasberg was a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He was appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 19, 2014.[2][3][4] He served as presiding judge from 2020 to 2021. Boasberg's term ended on May 18, 2021.[5]

Early life and education

A native of San Francisco, California, Boasberg earned his bachelor's degree from Yale College in 1985, his M.St. from the University of Oxford in 1986, and his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990.[4]

Professional career

Judicial career

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (2014-2021)

Boasberg became a judge on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court on May 19, 2014. He was appointed by Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Boasberg served as the presiding judge of the court from January 1, 2020, to May 18, 2021.[2][6]

District of Columbia (2011-present)

Nomination Tracker
Fedbadgesmall.png
Nominee Information
Name: James E. Boasberg
Court: District of Columbia
Progress
Confirmed 270 days after nomination.
ApprovedANominated: June 17, 2010
ApprovedAABA Rating: Unanimously Well Qualified
Questionnaire:
ApprovedAHearing: September 15, 2010
Hearing Transcript: Hearing Transcript
QFRs: (Hover over QFRs to read more)
ApprovedAReported: February 3, 2011 December 1, 2010
ApprovedAConfirmed: March 14, 2011
ApprovedAVote: 96-0

Boasberg was nominated on June 17, 2010, to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama (D) to a seat vacated by Judge Thomas Hogan. Announcing three appointments on the same day, Obama said collectively, "These distinguished individuals have demonstrated an unwavering commitment to public service throughout their careers. I am grateful for their decision to serve the American people from the District Court bench."[7]

The American Bar Association rated Boasberg Unanimously Qualified for the nomination. Hearings on Boasberg's nomination were held before the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 15, 2010, and his nomination was reported by U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) on December 1, 2010. Boasberg's nomination was returned to the president at the sine die adjournment of the 111th United States Congress. President Obama resubmitted Boasberg's nomination on January 5, 2011, and his nomination was reported by Senator Leahy on February 3, 2011, without hearings. Boasberg was confirmed on a recorded 96-0 vote of the U.S. Senate on March 14, 2011, and he received his commission on March 17, 2011.[8][9][10] He became chief judge of the district court in on March 17, 2023.[1]

Noteworthy cases

Opinion finding probable cause to hold Trump administration officials in contempt of court vacated on appeal (2025)

See also: Supreme Court emergency orders related to the Trump administration, 2025

On March 15, 2025, President Donald Trump (R) issued a presidential proclamation titled, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua." The proclamation invoked the Alien Enemies Act against members of Tren de Aragua, a gang that originated in Venezuela.[11] The proclamation said, "I find and declare that [Tren de Aragua] is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. [...] All Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies."[12]

Later that day, Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order temporarily blocking the proclamation and preventing the Trump administration from deporting anyone as a result of the proclamation for 14 days.[13] After Boasberg's order was issued, three planes with Venezuelan citizens on board brought the individuals to a prison in El Salvador. The Trump administration said that the individuals were members of Tren de Aragua. Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the individuals deported or at threat of deportation were asylum-seekers who were not members of Tren de Aragua.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag Boasberg subsequently said he sought further information "to determine if the Government deliberately flouted its Orders issued on March 15, 2025, and, if so, what the consequences should be."[14]

On March 18, Trump publicly called for Boasberg's impeachment in a post on Truth Social, saying, "This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!"[15] Supreme Court Justice John Roberts also commented on the case, saying "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."[16]

The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion on April 7, 2025, dismissing Boasberg's orders in this case. The court said the case should be litigated individually through habeas petitions in Texas, where some of the plaintiffs were being held by federal authorities. The opinion did not address the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport the Venezuelan citizens. The court also said that non-citizens have due process rights.[17]

On April 17, Boasberg issued a memorandum opinion saying, "the Court ultimately determines that the Government’s actions on that day [March 15] demonstrate a willful disregard for its Order, sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt." Boasberg said the grounds for the contempt proceeding were the government's lack of compliance with Boasberg's temporary restraining order before it was dismissed by the Supreme Court.[18] The federal government appealed this opinion to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[19] On August 8, 2025, the appeals court issued a 2-1 opinion vacating Boasberg's memorandum opinion on contempt proceedings.[20]

Closure of Dakota Access Pipeline pending environmental review (2020)

On March 25, 2020, Judge James Boasberg mandated a comprehensive environmental review of the Dakota Access Pipeline by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.[21] The Dakota Access Pipeline was a nearly 1,200 mile-long oil pipeline that transported crude oil from the oil fields in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota across South Dakota and Iowa to a terminal in Illinois.[22] Energy Transfer Partners completed their construction of the pipeline in 2017.[23]

The Army Corps of Engineers previously completed an impact study of the pipeline in August 2018, also ordered by Judge Boasberg, and concluded that the pipeline posed no significant environmental threats. When Boasberg ordered a full environmental review in March 2020, he indicated that previous reviews of the project did not fully address the environmental concerns surrounding it. Boasberg wrote in the order, "The many commenters in this case pointed to serious gaps in crucial parts of the Corps' analysis – to name a few, that the pipeline's leak-detection system was unlikely to work, that it was not designed to catch slow spills, that the operator's serious history of incidents had not been taken into account, that that the worst-case scenario used by the Corps was potentially only a fraction of what a realistic figure would be – and the Corps was not able to fill any of [the gaps]."[21]

On July 7, 2020, Boasberg ruled that the pipeline was to be emptied of oil within 30 days and was to remain empty pending the review, which at the time was expected to take upwards of a year to complete.[24]

New Hampshire latest of three states to have Medicaid work requirements blocked by federal judge (2019)

Judge James Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia blocked New Hampshire’s Medicaid work requirements on July 29, 2019. Boasberg previously blocked similar Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas on March 27, 2019.[25][26]

The Trump administration announced in January 2018 that it would allow states to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients through Section 1115 waivers.[27]

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) approved Medicaid work requirement waivers in New Hampshire, Arkansas, and Kentucky that would have required individuals to complete between 80-100 hours of paid or volunteer work each month—depending on the state—in order to receive benefits. Boasberg set aside each of the states’ work requirements on the grounds that HHS’ approval of the plans was arbitrary and capricious due to the agency’s failure to adequately analyze the scope of the prospective loss in Medicaid coverage recipients.[25][26]

Boasberg declined to apply Chevron deference, which at the time would have compelled a federal court to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute, in either of the cases. He argued that the agency’s interpretation of the Medicaid Act, which required HHS to approve waivers “likely to assist in promoting the objectives [of the Act],” was unreasonable because it didn’t reflect Medicaid’s core objective of providing medical assistance to those unable to afford it.[28]

As of August 9, 2019, HHS had approved work requirements in six other states and seven waiver applications were pending, according to a report from the Kaiser Family Foundation.[29]

Judge rescinds approval of changes to Kentucky's Medicaid program (2018)

On June 29, 2018, a federal judge barred implementation of a series of changes to Kentucky's Medicaid program, including the creation of work or community engagement requirements for Medicaid recipients.[30] Judge James Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had failed to consider whether the changes (referred to as the Kentucky HEALTH plan) "would in fact help the state furnish medical assistance to its citizens, the central objective of Medicaid." Boasberg rescinded approval of the program, which had been granted by HHS on January 12, 2018, and ordered the department to review the matter further.[31]

Seema Verma, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, issued the following statement in response to the ruling: "Today’s decision is disappointing. States are the laboratories of democracy and numerous administrations have looked to them to develop and test reforms that have advanced the objectives of the Medicaid program. The Trump Administration is no different. We are conferring with the Department of Justice to chart a path forward."[32]

Elizabeth Lower-Basch, director of income and work supports at the Center for Law and Social Policy, praised the ruling: "The court made the right decision. It found that HHS did not even consider the basic question of whether [Kentucky's program] would harm the core Medicaid goal of providing health coverage, and it prohibits Kentucky from implementing it until HHS makes such an assessment."[33]

On July 1, 2018, the administration of Governor Matt Bevin (R) announced via email that dental and vision benefits for approximately 460,000 Medicaid recipients would end effective July 1. "When Kentucky HEALTH was struck down by the court, the 'My Rewards Account' program [i.e., the program, established by the Kentucky HEALTH plan, under which Medicaid expansion recipients paid for dental and vision coverage] was invalidated, meaning there is no longer a legal mechanism in place to pay for dental and vision coverage for about 460,000 beneficiaries [covered under Medicaid expansion] ... As such, they no longer have access to dental and vision coverage as a result of the court's ruling." This did not apply to traditional Medicaid recipients, such as pregnant women, children, and the disabled. Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Ky.) criticized the action and announced that his office was seeking an opinion from the Centers for Medicaid and Medicaid Services (CMS) on its legality: "We don't think [Bevin] can do that. We checked with CMS — they said they don't know if he can do that."[34]

Judge rules against detaining asylum seekers for more than seven days (2018)

On July 2, 2018, Judge Boasberg issued a preliminary injunction barring the federal government from detaining asylum seekers at five U.S. field offices in Detroit, El Paso, Los Angeles, Newark, and Philadelphia. Boasberg ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) violated its own policy of granting a hearing or releasing asylum seekers within seven days if they established a credible fear of persecution in their native country. Boasberg ordered the government to release or grant hearings for more than 1,000 asylum seekers who had been detained for more than seven days. He also said that while the lawsuit was ongoing, ICE could not detain asylum seekers for more than seven days without providing written explanations for an individual's detention following a personalized review of their claim.[35]

The ruling responded to a lawsuit, Damus v. Nielsen, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in March 2018 on behalf of nine detained asylum seekers. Senior staff attorney for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, Michael Tan, said the ruling "means the Trump administration cannot use indefinite detention as a weapon to punish and deter asylum seekers." The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.[35]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 The New York Times, "Gavel to Pass to New Chief Judge Overseeing Grand Jury in Trump Inquiry," accessed April 14, 2023
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Politico, "Roberts names 2 new FISA court judges," February 7, 2014
  3. ↑ Federal Association of Scientists, "The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court," accessed February 10, 2014
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 Federal Judicial Center, "Biography of Judge James Emanuel Boasberg," accessed May 10, 2017
  5. ↑ Federal Judicial Center, "Boasberg, James Emanuel," accessed May 19, 2021
  6. ↑ U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, "Current membership," accessed May 10, 2017
  7. ↑ White House Office of the Press Secretary, "President Obama Names Three to United States District Court," June 17, 2010
  8. ↑ United States Congress, "PN 1867 — James Emanuel Boasberg — The Judiciary," accessed May 10, 2017
  9. ↑ United States Congress, "PN12 — James Emanuel Boasberg — The Judiciary," accessed May 10, 2017
  10. ↑ American Bar Association, "Ratings of Article III judicial nominees, 111th Congress," accessed May 10, 2017
  11. ↑ BBC, "What is Tren de Aragua, the Venezuelan gang targeted by Trump?" March 17, 2025
  12. ↑ White House, "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua," March 14, 2025
  13. ↑ CourtListener, "J.G.G. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00766)," accessed March 20, 2025
  14. ↑ CourtListener, "Order," March 19, 2025
  15. ↑ Truth Social, "Trump on March 18, 2025," accessed March 20, 2025
  16. ↑ Politico, "John Roberts, in rare statement, hits back after Trump calls for impeaching judges," March 18, 2025
  17. ↑ SCOTUSBlog, "Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas," April 7, 2025
  18. ↑ CourtListener, "Order," April 16, 2025
  19. ↑ CourtListener, "J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (25-5124)," accessed May 21, 2025
  20. ↑ CourtListener, "Opinion Filed (Special Panel) — Document #01208764800," August 8, 2025
  21. ↑ 21.0 21.1 NPR, "Judge Orders Environmental Review Of Controversial Dakota Access Pipeline," March 25, 2020
  22. ↑ BBC, "Dakota Pipeline: What's behind the controversy?" February 7, 2017
  23. ↑ BBC, "Dakota Access Pipeline: Judge suspends use of key oil link," July 7, 2020
  24. ↑ BBC, "Dakota Access Pipeline: Judge suspends use of key oil link," July 7, 2020
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 The Hill, "Federal judge strikes New Hampshire's Medicaid work requirements," July 29, 2019
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 Washington Post, "Federal judge blocks Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas," March 27, 2019
  27. ↑ New York Times, "Trump Administration Says States May Impose Work Requirements for Medicaid," January 11, 2018
  28. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Philbrick v. Azar," accessed August 12, 2019
  29. ↑ Kaiser Family Foundation, "Medicaid Waiver Tracker: Approved and Pending Section 1115 Waivers by State," August 9, 2019
  30. ↑ Under the program, recipients would be required to complete at least 80 hours per month of work, job training, or qualified community service.
  31. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Stewart v. Azar: Memorandum Opinion," June 29, 2018
  32. ↑ Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, "Administrator Verma Statement: Federal District Court Decision on Kentucky Medicaid Program," June 29, 2018
  33. ↑ NPR, "Federal Judge Blocks Medicaid Work Requirements In Kentucky," June 29, 2018
  34. ↑ Louisville Courier Journal, "Bevin cuts dental, vision benefits to nearly 500K Medicaid recipients," July 2, 2018
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 The Washington Post, "U.S. judge blocks Trump crackdown on asylum seekers, bars blanket detentions of those with persecution claims," July 2, 2018

Political offices
Preceded by
- 		United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
2014-2021		 Succeeded by
-
Preceded by
- 		United States District Court for the District of Columbia
2011-Present		 Succeeded by
-



Washington, D.C.Washington, D.C. judicial newsJudicial selection in Washington, D.C.United States District Court for the District of ColumbiaUnited States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia CircuitDistrict of Columbia Court of AppealsSuperior Court of the District of ColumbiaDCTemplate.jpg
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=James_E._Boasberg&oldid=10477405"