{"id":129022,"date":"2025-07-31T10:50:42","date_gmt":"2025-07-31T18:50:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/31\/performative-judicial-complaint-meet-freedom-of-information-act\/"},"modified":"2025-07-31T10:50:42","modified_gmt":"2025-07-31T18:50:42","slug":"performative-judicial-complaint-meet-freedom-of-information-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/31\/performative-judicial-complaint-meet-freedom-of-information-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Performative Judicial Complaint? Meet Freedom Of Information Act."},"content":{"rendered":"

On Monday, July 28, Attorney General Bondi\u2019s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle hand-delivered an ethics complaint<\/a> to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In typically indignant terms, it alleged a gross violation of judicial ethics by Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n

Specifically, it accused the judge of intimidating Chief Justice Roberts and publicly expressing bias toward the Trump administration at the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference<\/a>, convened to hash out recommendations for administration of the judiciary.<\/p>\n

\u201cJudge\u202fBoasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would \u2018disregard rulings of federal courts\u2019 and trigger \u2018a constitutional crisis,\u2019\u201d the document intoned ominously.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department howls that this violates the Judicial Canons by denigrating \u201cthe integrity and independence of the judiciary\u201d and making \u201cpublic comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.\u201d<\/p>\n

As multiple legal observers<\/a> have already pointed out<\/a>, that\u2019s ridiculous. The meeting is not public<\/em>, and nothing said in its cloistered breakout rooms could possibly be construed as \u201cpublic comment\u201d harming the integrity of the judiciary. And of course, Judge Boasberg\u2019s fears were immediately realized, with the DOJ defying court orders in one in three cases<\/a>, according to the Washington Post.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the DOJ indulged in a round of melodramatic flopping, demanding that Judge Srinivasan initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judge Boasberg and remove him from the J.G.G.<\/em> case in which he\u2019s already found probable cause<\/a> to believe the government is in contempt of court.<\/p>\n

So far, so standard operating procedure. The GOP loves performative ethics complaints. Rep. Elise Stefanik alone filed four in 2024, targeting Justices Arthur Engoron<\/a> and Juan Merchan<\/a> in New York; Judge Beryl Howell<\/a> in DC; and Special Counsel Jack Smith<\/a>. And Chad Mizelle channeled his own inner Karen<\/a> for a complaint against Judge Ana Reyes in February. Demanding to speak to the manager and then running to Fox News to yell about it is kind of their thing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But this time, there\u2019s something weird going on. Because minutes of Judicial Conference coffee klatches are not released. And while Judge Srinivasan was in the room and presumably knows what went down in March, there\u2019s no evidence in this complaint that this damning conversation ever happened. The best they\u2019ve got is a cryptic reference in a footnote to \u201cAttachment A at 16.\u201d And Mizelle\u2019s \u201cSee Attachment A\u201d T-shirt is raising questions! Because Attachment A is not<\/em> attached \u2014 at least not to the version of the document given to every reporter in DC Monday night. And while AG Bondi was happy to yell about the complaint on Twitter, she wasn\u2019t sharing her sources there either.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

But someone out there is<\/em> quoting from this document. And that someone is rightwing hyperventilator Margot Cleveland of (Who Funds) The Federalist, who theatrically clutched her pearls<\/a> on the topic on July 16.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what she had to say:<\/p>\n

\n

In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a \u201cworking breakfast\u201d at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, \u201cDistrict of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues\u2019 concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Note that Mizelle, the purported Ethics Understander, appears to have doctored this quote to obscure the fact that Judge Boasberg was speaking about a generalized concern of his colleagues<\/em>, not, as the complaint suggests, \u201chis preconceived belief.\u201d<\/p>\n

And while Mizelle confines himself to one quote from the supposed memo, Cleveland cannot help but add a second.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cChief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,\u201d according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that \u201chis interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Did he now?<\/em><\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Chief Justice Roberts, who devoted his end-of-year missive to warning<\/a> about the dangers of demonizing judges and just a month ago decried<\/a> the overheated rhetoric against judges coming out of the Trump administration, said \u201cDon\u2019t worry guys, it\u2019s cool, Trump thanked me at the State of the Union?\u201d<\/p>\n

Obviously this complaint is going nowhere, despite John Yoo\u2019s dogged efforts<\/a> to waterboard it into existence. Let\u2019s accept for the sake of argument that an actual sitting federal court judge took diligent notes of this meeting and accurately conveyed said notes to The Federalist<\/em>. That would mean that there really is<\/em> a memo, and that \u201cAttachment A\u201d is more than a hyperlink to Cleveland\u2019s histrionics. But they aren\u2019t sharing!<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

But Kel McClanahan, Executive Director at National Security Counselors<\/a>, says the government may not refuse to disclose it.<\/p>\n

\u201cFOIA applies to all agency records. It does not apply to Congressional or Judicial records,\u201d he said. \u201cBut it does apply to records which originated outside an agency but were later put into the agency\u2019s files for its own purposes.\u201d<\/p>\n

And we at the Law and Chaos Podcast<\/a> said \u2026 BET.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Last night I filed a FOIA request on behalf of @lawandchaospod.bsky.social for one little niggling thing the complaint elided over. Planning to litigate if necessary, given how important Karen\u2013sorry, Chad\u2013said this matter was.I’m sure it was just an oversight.<\/p>\n

\u2014 National Security Counselors \ud83d\udd75 (@nationalsecuritylaw.org)<\/a> 2025-07-29T14:28:54.166Z<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n

The show filed a FOIA request for this document which absolutely positively exists. (Unless it doesn\u2019t.)<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen this record was created by a judge, it was not subject to FOIA,\u201d McClanahan continued. \u201cWhen it was leaked to Cleveland, it was not subject to FOIA. When it was given to DOJ, it arguably became an agency record, but you could make an argument it still wasn\u2019t. But when the Department of Justice explicitly used it to create a complaint to be filed with the D.C. Circuit, it undisputedly became an agency record. And therefore, undisputedly subject to FOIA.\u201d<\/p>\n

All we\u2019re asking for is that the administration make public the supposed evidence that would support those very serious allegations against Judge Boasberg.<\/p>\n

So cough it up, Chad, or we\u2019ll see you in court!<\/p>\n

Subscribe to read more at Law and Chaos\u2026.<\/em><\/a>(Opens in a new window)<\/p>\n

\n

Liz Dye<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Andrew Torrez<\/a>\u00a0produce the Law and Chaos\u00a0Substack\u00a0<\/a>and\u00a0podcast<\/a>.<\/strong><\/em> You can subscribe to their Substack by clicking the logo:\"\"<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The post Performative Judicial Complaint? Meet Freedom Of Information Act.<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

On Monday, July 28, Attorney General Bondi\u2019s Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle hand-delivered an ethics complaint<\/a> to the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. In typically indignant terms, it alleged a gross violation of judicial ethics by Chief Judge James Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia.<\/p>\n

Specifically, it accused the judge of intimidating Chief Justice Roberts and publicly expressing bias toward the Trump administration at the biannual meeting of the Judicial Conference<\/a>, convened to hash out recommendations for administration of the judiciary.<\/p>\n

\u201cJudge\u202fBoasberg attempted to improperly influence Chief Justice Roberts and roughly two dozen other federal judges by straying from the traditional topics to express his belief that the Trump Administration would \u2018disregard rulings of federal courts\u2019 and trigger \u2018a constitutional crisis,\u2019\u201d the document intoned ominously.<\/p>\n

The Justice Department howls that this violates the Judicial Canons by denigrating \u201cthe integrity and independence of the judiciary\u201d and making \u201cpublic comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.\u201d<\/p>\n

As multiple legal observers<\/a> have already pointed out<\/a>, that\u2019s ridiculous. The meeting is not public<\/em>, and nothing said in its cloistered breakout rooms could possibly be construed as \u201cpublic comment\u201d harming the integrity of the judiciary. And of course, Judge Boasberg\u2019s fears were immediately realized, with the DOJ defying court orders in one in three cases<\/a>, according to the Washington Post.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the DOJ indulged in a round of melodramatic flopping, demanding that Judge Srinivasan initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judge Boasberg and remove him from the J.G.G.<\/em> case in which he\u2019s already found probable cause<\/a> to believe the government is in contempt of court.<\/p>\n

So far, so standard operating procedure. The GOP loves performative ethics complaints. Rep. Elise Stefanik alone filed four in 2024, targeting Justices Arthur Engoron<\/a> and Juan Merchan<\/a> in New York; Judge Beryl Howell<\/a> in DC; and Special Counsel Jack Smith<\/a>. And Chad Mizelle channeled his own inner Karen<\/a> for a complaint against Judge Ana Reyes in February. Demanding to speak to the manager and then running to Fox News to yell about it is kind of their thing<\/em>.<\/p>\n

But this time, there\u2019s something weird going on. Because minutes of Judicial Conference coffee klatches are not released. And while Judge Srinivasan was in the room and presumably knows what went down in March, there\u2019s no evidence in this complaint that this damning conversation ever happened. The best they\u2019ve got is a cryptic reference in a footnote to \u201cAttachment A at 16.\u201d And Mizelle\u2019s \u201cSee Attachment A\u201d T-shirt is raising questions! Because Attachment A is not<\/em> attached \u2014 at least not to the version of the document given to every reporter in DC Monday night. And while AG Bondi was happy to yell about the complaint on Twitter, she wasn\u2019t sharing her sources there either.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n

But someone out there is<\/em> quoting from this document. And that someone is rightwing hyperventilator Margot Cleveland of (Who Funds) The Federalist, who theatrically clutched her pearls<\/a> on the topic on July 16.<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s what she had to say:<\/p>\n

\n

In a memorandum obtained exclusively by The Federalist, a member of the Judicial Conference summarized the March meeting, including a \u201cworking breakfast\u201d at which Justice Roberts spoke. According to the memorandum, \u201cDistrict of the District of Columbia Chief Judge James Boasberg next raised his colleagues\u2019 concerns that the Administration would disregard rulings of federal courts leading to a constitutional crisis.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Note that Mizelle, the purported Ethics Understander, appears to have doctored this quote to obscure the fact that Judge Boasberg was speaking about a generalized concern of his colleagues<\/em>, not, as the complaint suggests, \u201chis preconceived belief.\u201d<\/p>\n

And while Mizelle confines himself to one quote from the supposed memo, Cleveland cannot help but add a second.<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cChief Justice Roberts expressed hope that would not happen and in turn no constitutional crisis would materialize,\u201d according to the memorandum. The summary of the working breakfast added that Chief Justice Roberts noted that \u201chis interactions with the President have been civil and respectful, such as the President thanking him at the state of the union address for administering the oath.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Did he now?<\/em><\/p>\n