The Constitution didn't give the president the power to attack other branches of government. But that's what Trump is doing.

͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­͏     ­

	Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Trump's Complaint About One Judge Is An Attack On The Entire Judiciary The Constitution didn't give the president the power to attack other branches of government. But that's what Trump is doing. Joyce Vance Jul 31   READ IN APP   On July 21, the Washington Post ran a piece headlined, “Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him.” A comprehensive analysis of hundreds of lawsuits filed against the administration’s new policies revealed “dozens of examples of defiance, delay and dishonesty,” by the government in handling the cases. Plaintiffs in more than a third of the cases that had progressed far enough for a judge to issue some type of ruling ordering the government to do—or not do—something accused the government of “snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked.” That data suggests there are real reasons for the courts to be concerned about whether the Trump administration is gearing up to actively flout the authority of the Article III branch of government in a direct and unequivocal fashion. So far, the government has offered attenuated excuses for its most flagrant abuses, transparently designed to give them lawful ground to stand on. But as whistleblower allegations emerged during the shameful proceedings that led, just yesterday, to the confirmation of former Trump criminal defense lawyer Emil Bove to be a Third Circuit Judge, it became increasingly clear that they were just that, excuses. Bove, multiple witnesses confirm, had gone so far as to suggest that the government’s response to any judicial checks on Donald Trump’s plans to deport people to foreign prisons or war-torn countries would be “F***” the courts.” Given that predicate, it should come as no surprise that judges are actively concerned. When the Judicial Conference of the United States met recently, the issue surfaced. That resulted in the Justice Department filing a complaint against District Judge James “Jeb” Boasberg. There is no way to soft-pedal this. The Trump administration wants to go to war with the federal judiciary. They’ve been moving that direction ever since the start of this administration. A little background about the Judicial Conference, where DOJ alleges Judge Boasberg made inappropriate comments, to set the stage here. The Judicial Conference is a body consisting of federal judges from across the country who work together to represent the entire judiciary. It is the national policy-making body for the federal courts. The Chief Justice of the United States is the presiding officer. The members of the Conference are the chief judge of each of the federal judicial circuits, the Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each circuit. The judges serve for terms of between three and seven years, depending on the position they hold. They meet privately to conducts the courts’ business. This document lists all of the current members of the Conference, and you’ll notice Judge Boasberg’s name down near the bottom. He is, of course, the D.C. Circuit Judge who handled the emergency challenge to the deportation of Venezuelan men who were in the U.S. without legal immigration status to El Salvador’s torture prison, CECOT. After the government contorted itself to evade his rulings, he found there was probable cause to believe they were in contempt of court. That led to a firestorm of criticism of Judge Boasberg. It can from Trump himself. It came from his Attorney General Pam Bondi. A resolution calling for his impeachment was filed in the House of Representatives by Congressmen Gill, Crane, Collins, Carter, Moore, and Clyde even earlier than that, just for having the temerity to think the federal courts could review actions taken by a president, in this case, the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act. They accused the Judge of “abuse of power.” There was abuse going on, but it wasn’t coming from the court. The Trump administration was making it clear it would go to war with any judge who attempted to exercise authority over it, in clear violation of constitutional separation of powers principles. On Monday, DOJ filed a complaint accusing Judge Boasberg of “making improper public comments about President Trump and his Administration.” CBS News was told by sources that Bondi directed her chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, to file the complaint with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Sri Srinivasan. The Judge’s comments were supposedly made, according to DOJ, at the March 11 Judicial Conference meeting. Those meetings are private, but DOJ apparently obtained reports, which led them to claim Judge Boasberg tried to “improperly influence” the Chief Justice and other judges, which is ludicrous, just on its face. DOJ complains that the comments reflect bias against the Trump administration and that Judge Boasberg should be censured by the court. DOJ’s complaint is full of allegations about the Judge’s misbehavior in cases that are in front of him. Lawyers often complain behind closed doors about judges’ decisions. But they don’t file petulant complaints with the courts about them. If anything, these sorts of disagreements might be suited for an appeal in these cases, although, if raised there, they would be borderline frivolous. Most parties to a case disagree with the judge who rules against them. That doesn’t mean the judge has done anything wrong—in most cases, one or more of the parties will find themselves on the losing side of at least some rulings. The icing on the cake is DOJ’s preposterous claim that the administration has complied with every court order. Beyond the impropriety of making this kind of completely unprecedented complaint with no basis for it, there are some real issues with the argument the government tries to make. For one thing, the Judge’s comments weren’t made in public, which is the predicate for DOJ’s entire complaint. They were privately made, in the supposed confidence of colleagues (no word on who leaked them or how accurate that leak was). Then, there’s the fact that the comments reflect legitimate concerns that are widely circulating among judges, lawyers, and the general public. There are more technical flaws in the legal arguments DOJ makes, invoking the Judicial Canons of Ethics, that we’ll delve into if this goes anywhere. But what it adds up to is wholly inadequate to merit further consideration by the court and certainly not something that rises to the level of warranting judicial sanctions. The fault here lies with DOJ and its slippery practices. The Attorney General announced that the Justice Department’s complaint in a Tweet, which is a whole next level of inappropriate. There’s no reason to do that. And isn’t that the point? The reason here is to launch a war on judges, regardless of merit. DOJ wants to scare federal judges into compliance with the administration’s views. It wants judges to discipline their own, simply for doing their jobs. The complaint is reminiscent of this administration’s efforts to bring universities, newspapers, law firms, and others to heel, only this time their target is a co-equal branch of government. Trump can’t use an executive order, because they only affect the executive branch of government. Judge Boasberg’s comments at the Judicial Conference, where he was representing his fellow judges and voicing the concern they must all have at this point, were entirely appropriate. He simply put to voice something that has to be a concern for federal judges across the country. But it became an opportunity to send a message to the federal judiciary. One that every judge in this nation must find the courage to reject. Judge Srinivasan must now decide whether to dismiss the complaint or refer it to a committee for investigation. This is the sort of laughable thing that should go straight into the trash. Even if it’s referred for investigation, because it came from the Justice Department and the court feels some need to show it took it seriously, it shouldn’t go anywhere. If they don’t, the Trump administration will, predictable, go on the attack again. The problem this creates is a very real one. An experienced federal judge in the District of Columbia will likely be unperturbed. But the administration is hoping its heavy-handed attacks may land elsewhere, with judges of less experience and weaker support systems, and that some judges may think twice before ruling against it. In this moment of attack, it’s imperative for the federal judiciary to uphold its constitutional role, including the power and duty to review decisions made by the executive branch that are brought before them and reject them when they violate the Constitution. Judges must protect their ability to think about and discuss those decisions amongst themselves and in private. The attack, by its nature, signals that it is improper; DOJ’s purpose here is not to do justice. The Chief Justice, who has sparingly spoken out in support of judges who have fallen under attack by this president in other cases must do so here, clarifying that the role of judges is to rule, guided by the facts and the law. A dissatisfied litigant can take an appeal. But the presidency, one of the most powerful parties imaginable in any litigation, should not be permitted to use its disagreements with an individual judge to ambush him or to launch an attack on the entire institution. When it does, as it has here, the attack must be rejected swiftly and forcefully. Understanding what’s really happening in the courts and at the Justice Department takes more than headlines — it takes someone who’s been there. I use my 25 years of experience inside of the system to help you see what truly matters. Becoming a paid subscriber to Civil Discourse helps me devote the time and resources necessary to provide context and clarity so more people can understand how these developments affect our democracy and our daily lives. Thank you for your support. We’re in this together, Joyce Upgrade to paid Share You're currently a free subscriber to Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance . For the full experience, upgrade your subscription. Upgrade to paid   Like Comment Restack   © 2025 Joyce Vance 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe