Judge Boasberg Keeps Getting Assigned Trump Cases. Lawmakers Want to Know Why.

Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, has repeatedly been assigned cases to do with President Donald Trump's second term, as Townhall has been covering. Congress has taken notice, and the House last month passed a bill to rein in rogue judges like Boasberg and others. Questions still remain, though, and on Monday, Townhall obtained a letter from Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Darrell Issa (R-CA), and Chip Roy (R-TX) regarding such concerns. The letter was sent to Angela D. Caesar, the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

As the letter begins in part by mentioning, the second Trump term has been hit with over 30 nationwide injunctions, with the term having started just over 100 days ago. 

"Many of these nationwide injunctions have raised concerns that Article III judges are exceeding their constitutional authority by replacing the policy decisions of the duly elected President with their own preferences, eroding public trust in the integrity and fairness of our judicial system. Many high-profile cases challenging policy decisions of the Trump Administration have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (District Court)," the letter mentions early on, referencing a key concern as well as previewing how Congress may look to be doing more. "As Congress considers potential legislative reforms to address the abuse of nationwide injunctions and adjust the national distribution and local assignment of cases challenging Executive Branch policy decisions, we write to request information about the District Court’s assignment of cases."

Among the cases that Boasberg has been assigned include not only the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for deportations, but also to do with administration officials' handling of the Signal app. The letter notes that Boasberg was assigned such "high-profile" cases less than two weeks apart. He was also assigned cases to do with the Department of Government of Efficiency and federal funding for programs that violate civil rights laws. While the latter was dismissed, this was due to the plaintiff's request.

The DC District Court’s local rules are used to assign cases, but again, questions still remain. As the rules mention:

The Clerk shall create a separate assignment deck in the automated system for each subclassification of civil and criminal cases established by the Court . . . . The decks will be created by the Liaison to the Calendar and Case Management Committee or the Liaison’s backup . . . . The Calendar and Case Management Committee will, from time to time determine and indicate by order the frequency with which each judge’s name shall appear in each designated deck, to effectuate an even distribution of cases among the active judges.

"Effectively, this process is like 'drawing from a deck of cards, in which each judge is their own suit, with a number of cards equal to the number of cases they can draw before the case-assignment deck is reshuffled and reloaded,'" the letter went on to explain, still citing the rules. "Moreover, the likelihood of a case being assigned to a particular judge 'depends on how many cases the judge has already drawn from the deck and how many more cases the judge is required to draw that cycle.'"

The letter also offers why the congressmen are looking to hear from the clerk herself. "While the District Court’s allocation process is intended to produce an 'equal distribution of cases to all judges,' in practice the distribution of cases can be unequal. The Committee cannot independently verify the randomness of case assignments because the composition of assignment decks is kept secret. The only individuals to whom the court clerk is permitted to disclose this information are members of the Calendar and Case Management Committee and the Chief Judge," they write. 

Boasberg, like so many other district judges issuing ruling against the Trump administration, was nominated by former President Barack Obama. But the Biden-Harris administration plays a role here as well.

Citing a poll from Gallup, the letter notes how the public has a record low in the judicial system. "During the Biden-Harris Administration, public confidence in the judicial system fell to a record low of 35 percent as some politically motivated prosecutors used federal and state courts for lawfare tactics and leftwing activists sought to delegitimize the Supreme Court," the congressmen mention, which may be putting it politely. "Restoring trust in the judicial system requires us to acknowledge and address the damage politicization an lawfare have done to the judicial system. We must understand the nature of the case assignment process in the District Court—which is considering a number of cases challenging the Trump Administration’s policy decisions—to consider and develop appropriate legislation."

Towards the end, the letter mentions the legislation meant to rein in district judges, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (NORRA), which was sponsored by Issa. And again, more "potential reforms" may be coming. These include "requiring payment of security for all injunctions, constraining judges’ authority to set aside agency action, and reforming case assignment systems in district courts to prevent tampering and ensure integrity," as the letter explains. 

The congressmen request of Caesar the following information from the cases of: Project on Government Oversight v. Trump from February 21, 2025; J. G.G. v. Trump from March 15, 2025; Erie County. v. Corporation for National and Community Service from March 17, 2025; and American Oversight v. Hegseth from March 25, 2025:

1. Describe the process by which the presiding judge was assigned to the case, including the date of assignment and the method used.

2. Describe any deviations in the process for assigning this case compared to the standard assignment process.

3. State the number of “cards” each judge had already drawn from the relevant assignment deck when the case was assigned.

4. State the number of “cards” each judge had remaining in the relevant assignment deck when the case was assigned.

5. Provide the number of judges who were eligible for assignment to the case when it was assigned. 

The members request that the material be submitted no later than May 19.  All three members are part of the House Judiciary Committee, with Jordan serving as the chairman, with Roy and Issa also serving as chairmen of subcommittees. 

Editor's Note: Every single day, here at Townhall, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.

Read the full article here.