Justice Department broke Judicial Conference norms by weaponizing private comments to cook up phony ethics filing against federal judge who is investigating DOJ for contempt
Washington, D.C. – Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) sent a letter last week to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts alerting him to the Justice Department’s weaponization of a leaked, second-hand memorandum from a private meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Last week, the Justice Department filed a complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, based on what purports to be a leaked memorandum showing that, at the Judicial Conference’s March meeting, Chief Judge Boasberg privately conveyed to the Judicial Conference his district court colleagues’ concerns that the Trump Administration might defy court orders.
Whitehouse, who attends meetings of the Judicial Conference in his role as Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Courts Subcommittee, slammed the Justice Department for the blatant violation of the Conference’s privacy to further the Department’s coordinated attack on the integrity of the judicial system.
“The Department filed what purports to be an ethics complaint allegedly based on a leaked memorandum of the Conference’s internal deliberations at that meeting. It is hard to see how comments of a member, that appear solidly grounded in fact, in a private administrative proceeding, could give rise to ethics charges against a member of the Conference,” wrote Whitehouse. “As Ranking Member of the Courts Subcommittee, I cannot help but see this as an obvious ploy by the Department to use Conference proceedings to ‘create a conflict’ as a precursor to moving to disqualify a respected chief judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the Department.”
In April, Chief Judge Boasberg initiated contempt proceedings into the Justice Department’s potential defiance of court orders in J.G.G. v. Trump. Chief Judge Boasberg found probable cause that the Trump Administration had likely committed criminal contempt of court by willfully disobeying his court order to immediately halt unlawful deportations. Several credible whistleblower complaints have since alleged that Emil Bove, the then-Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, instructed Justice Department attorneys to be prepared to tell courts—including in the J.G.G. case—“f*** you” if they ruled against the government. A recent Washington Post analysis found that the Administration has been accused of violating court orders in 57 different cases.
“There is a further chapter to this saga. After Chief Judge Boasberg’s probable cause determination, two Trump appointees on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, over a statement of dissent, suspended those contempt proceedings by administrative stay. As you know, an administrative stay is ordinarily a very short-term procedure to preserve the status quo pending prompt further action by the court. This administrative stay has lasted three months,” wrote Whitehouse.
“The stay has prevented contempt proceedings from going forward regarding potentially contumacious Department of Justice conduct, at the center of which was Emil Bove. In those three months of administrative stay, Mr. Bove’s confirmation to a United States Court of Appeals judgeship was sped through our Judiciary Committee,” added the Senator.
In April, Judges Gregory Katsas and Neomi Rao, both of whom were appointed by President Donald Trump, suspended the contempt proceedings by administrative stay over a statement of dissent by a third judge on the panel. The two Trump-appointed judges have now stalled the contempt proceeding for over three months. Senate Republicans since voted to confirm Emil Bove to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit on a 50-49 vote, despite Bove appearing to have misled the Judiciary Committee about multiple credible, backstopped allegations of misconduct during his time at the Justice Department.
“There remain a great many unanswered questions, but these concerns are real and grave. I respectfully suggest to you that they merit your attention as chief administrative officer of the Judicial Branch,” concluded Whitehouse’s letter to the Chief Justice.
Last week, Whitehouse urged Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, to look into the extraordinarily long administrative stay in the J.G.G case that blocked the investigation of Emil Bove and other Department of Justice lawyers’ potential contempt of court.
The text of the letter is below and a PDF is available here.
July 30, 2025
The Honorable John G. Roberts, Jr.
Chairman, Judicial Conference of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
One First St. NE Washington, D.C. 20543
Dear Chief Justice Roberts:
Over the past several years, you and I have not seen eye to eye on every issue facing the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference of the United States. But I have appreciated your invitations to express my concerns directly at Judicial Conference meetings, from my position on the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Federal Courts. In those exchanges, I have always respected the Conference’s desire that your proceedings remain private. I hope you agree.
For that reason, I was shocked to see the Department of Justice violate the Conference’s privacy with its recent filing that purports to be an ethics complaint against a Conference member, Chief Judge James Boasberg.
Like me, Attorney General Bondi was invited to the Conference’s March 2025 meeting as your guest. Although she did not attend, I expected that she too would respect your invitation to these administrative deliberations, including the Conference’s desire for privacy. Instead, the Department filed what purports to be an ethics complaint allegedly based on a leaked memorandum of the Conference’s internal deliberations at that meeting.
It is hard to see how comments of a member, that appear solidly grounded in fact, in a private administrative proceeding, could give rise to ethics charges against a member of the Conference. As Ranking Member of the Courts Subcommittee, I cannot help but see this as an obvious ploy by the Department to use Conference proceedings to “create a conflict” as a precursor to moving to disqualify a respected chief judge who has initiated contempt proceedings against the Department.
As the chief administrative officer of the Judicial Branch, you should be aware of the full scenario transpiring here. Chief Judge Boasberg found probable cause to convene proceedings to investigate whether Department attorneys contumaciously violated his orders—the very concern that he apparently expressed as a general administrative matter to the Conference, and which is now the subject of the so-called Department of Justice ethics complaint. I attach for your awareness contemporaneous whistleblower evidence demonstrating the conduct by Department officials that predicated Chief Judge Boasberg’s probable cause determination. This well-predicated contempt hearing could adduce evidence leading to Department officials being held in contempt of court, so the Department’s motivations are obvious.
There is a further chapter to this saga. After Chief Judge Boasberg’s probable cause determination, two Trump appointees on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, over a statement of dissent, suspended those contempt proceedings by administrative stay. As you know, an administrative stay is ordinarily a very short-term procedure to preserve the status quo pending prompt further action by the court. This administrative stay has lasted three months.
The stay has prevented contempt proceedings from going forward regarding potentially contumacious Department of Justice conduct, at the center of which was Emil Bove. In those three months of administrative stay, Mr. Bove’s confirmation to a United States Court of Appeals judgeship was sped through our Judiciary Committee. My concerns about this have been related to U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Chief Judge Srinivasan in a letter from myself and Senator Blumenthal, that is also attached.
If a court of the United States was used to stall contempt proceedings, in order to create a window for Senate confirmation of an individual central to those contempt proceedings, by protecting that nominee from the factfinding attendant to those contempt proceedings, it would be a significant blow to the independence and integrity of the Judicial Branch. There remain a great many unanswered questions, but these concerns are real and grave. I respectfully suggest to you that they merit your attention as chief administrative officer of the Judicial Branch.
I look forward to continuing to exchange our views, privately and respectfully, at future Judicial Conference meetings. I plan to continue to honor the Conference’s desire that such discussions not be shared publicly. However, please let me know if the Conference’s position on privacy has changed in light of the Department’s recent actions based on Judicial Conference proceedings.
