Politics is a dirty game. And sometimes your loss leaves you in legal trouble.
Now this investigation from the White House is dropping jaws.
Trump Questions Court Assignments
President Trump fired off a call for an investigation Thursday into how U.S. District Judge James Boasberg keeps landing major cases against his administration, dubbing the odds “statistically impossible.”
From his perch on Truth Social, Trump zeroed in on Boasberg, an Obama appointee, who’s now set to oversee four high-stakes lawsuits challenging White House moves.
“Boasberg, who is the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, seems to be grabbing the ’Trump Cases’ all to himself, even though it is not supposed to happen that way,” Trump wrote. “Is there such a thing as the ‘wheel,’ where the Judges are chosen fairly, and at random?”
The latest case pits Boasberg against five Cabinet heavyweights—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, and others—over their use of Signal to plan Yemen strikes.
Filed by American Oversight, the suit claims the encrypted chats dodge federal record-keeping laws and demands the messages be preserved. Trump’s not buying the setup, hinting at a deeper flaw: “The good news is that it probably doesn’t matter because it is virtually impossible for me to get an honest ruling in D.C.”
A Packed Docket Sparks Debate
Boasberg’s plate is full. Earlier this month, he slapped a temporary block on deporting Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a ruling the administration’s appealing—and one that sparked Trump’s public call for his impeachment.
Then there’s the Project on Government Oversight’s case, alleging the Department of Government Efficiency’s “presidential records” label skirts FOIA rules. Plus, he’s tackling a suit over the push to shutter federal DEI offices.
“Disgraceful,” Trump called it, arguing the system’s stacked: “Our Nation’s Courts are broken with New York and D.C. being the most preeminent of all in their Corruption and Radicalism.”
Court norms lean on random assignment from a pool of 20 judges, but Boasberg’s four cases don’t top the list—Judge Jia Cobb’s juggling at least 10 Trump-related suits, with others handling five or six. Still, Boasberg’s track record with Trump cases stands out.
In 2017, he shot down a bid to force out Trump’s tax returns, yet later compelled Mike Pence to testify about January 6. His history fuels the clash, though a court spokesperson stayed silent when pressed for comment.
Signal Chat Fallout Fuels Tensions
The Signal saga broke when The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg revealed he’d been accidentally added to the chat, exposing top officials’ talks. American Oversight’s suit followed, pressing for “emergency relief” to stop “unlawful destruction of federal records” tied to “sensitive national security decision-making.”
Trump had already labeled Boasberg a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” days before the assignment, insisting voters, not courts, picked him to tackle immigration. “There must be an immediate investigation into this Rigged System, before it is too late!” he urged.
The uproar nudged Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. into a rare comment: “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
It’s a measured check against Trump’s heat, but the legal community’s buzzing over the optics. Boasberg’s docket—and Trump’s pushback—keep the spotlight on a judicial tug-of-war that’s far from settled.
