We need to let the whole world know what his end game really is.
Hey Hey..
J.J.
How many judges did you impeach today?
ZERO
Very well done.
yes
his end game pretty obviously includes the destruction of our representative form of governance as provided in the US Constitution. And yes, the discarding of our Constitutional rights and liberties to the dustbin of history
socalled judges that are, in actual effect, mere footsoldiers in the global Communist or Nazi movement, judges who flagarantly ignore their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States, such judges are a primary cause of the widespread (and growing) utter contempt of the judiciary and the law in America. This has far wider adverse impacts on our entire social contract (whether it is the need to restore some integrity to our electoral process, root out the bad apples in our judiciary and public prosecutor offices, root out the tremendous corruption in many of our government agencies, terminate the patently unconsitutional agencies like Atf,etc., or clean out the Commie/Nazi rot oin some of our colleges (public and private alike). Oh yeah, while cleaning out the garbage in our government and colleges, it will be nice to clean the garbage on our streets too (stop all the bullkrap and corruption and actually help the addicts and winos, and move the piles of trash to the dump, etc.)
sgtop
I like what you wrote. A lot.
I like it although the salutation “Dear Dirty American-Hating Bastard Boasberg” would be my choice.
Is that even scientifically possible?
"[T]hough [Boasberg's verbal order to command an aircraft over international waters over which he had no jurisdiction to return immediately to the US]
"be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.
“You are also being charged with giving air control orders without a license.”
.
Yes Sir!
When I saw that Judge moron had actually done that I just laughed.
If PDJT pursues that approach for this, well...
FAA fines for this infraction are GUARANTEED to get the judge’s attention.
I have seen them dish out fines in the $100,000.00 range for rules violations.
I have seen them ding recreational Drone Pilots for 50-60k for flying around railroad tracks and trains for photos.
FAA don’t play.
.
I’ll second that motion. Come and get me.
I dont know... sitting back semi anonymous beating on the judges is one thing, sending a letter with my return address on it is something else... I haven’t cleaned out my closets in years!!
THE WORK OF HIS DAUGHTER & HIS WIFE NEED SOME SUNLIGHT, ALSO.
DAUGHTER: NGO THAT SUPPORTS & “ADVISES” INVADERS BOUT STAYING HERE & NOT BEING DEPORTED.
WIFE: RUNS AN ABORTION BUSINESS
NOT EXACTLY STELLAR MEMBERS OF ANY COMMUNITY
When I was in the Air Force unlawful orders did not have to be obeyed
Key Principles
The general rule in federal courts is that a court order—even if later found to be incorrect—must be obeyed while it is in effect, unless the issuing court clearly lacked jurisdiction to enter it. Disobedience of such an order can result in contempt, and the contempt finding may stand even if the order is later reversed, so long as the court had jurisdiction when it issued the order.
Judge Boasberg stated that the Supreme Court’s later ruling against his order “does not absolve the Government’s violation,” emphasizing that officials are required to obey court orders while they are in effect, even if those orders are subsequently overturned This reflects the prevailing federal doctrine.
The contempt finding can remain in force, because the original order was binding until reversed—even if it was later found to be legally incorrect.
The order is void, and the contempt finding is also void and unenforceable.
A district judge can assert that contempt occurred during the period his order was in effect, and this position is generally supported in federal law—if the judge had jurisdiction. If the higher court overturns the order on legal grounds but finds the judge had jurisdiction, the contempt finding may still be enforced. If the higher court finds the judge lacked jurisdiction, both the order and any contempt findings based on it are void and cannot be enforced.
Yes, in the Boasberg case, the Supreme Court found that Judge Boasberg did not have jurisdiction to issue the order blocking the deportation flights. The Supreme Court vacated his temporary restraining order (TRO), holding that the case should have been brought in a different venue—specifically, that Texas, not Washington, D.C., had jurisdiction over the matter involving the Alien Enemies Act.
Legal Implications for the Contempt Order
When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, its orders are generally considered void ab initio—meaning they are treated as if they never had legal effect from the outset. Under this doctrine, actions taken in violation of such an order cannot be punished as contempt, because the order itself was never valid.
Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Judge Boasberg argued that his order was binding and that contempt could still be found for violations that occurred while the order was in effect, even if it was later vacated for lack of jurisdiction. This reflects a broader judicial doctrine that orders must be obeyed until reversed, but that doctrine generally presupposes the issuing court had at least arguable jurisdiction.
The prevailing view is that if a court’s lack of jurisdiction is clear, its orders are void, and contempt findings based on those orders cannot stand. If, however, the jurisdictional defect is less clear or is only discovered after the fact, courts sometimes treat the orders as “voidable” rather than void, but the Supreme Court’s ruling here was explicit about the lack of jurisdiction.
Because the Supreme Court found that Judge Boasberg lacked jurisdiction, his order is void ab initio, and any contempt order based solely on violation of that order would also be void and unenforceable. Boasberg’s insistence that the government could still be held in contempt during the period before the Supreme Court’s ruling does not align with established law regarding orders issued without jurisdiction. The contempt order should not stand under these circumstances.
Yes, Judge Boasberg is actively pursuing contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials despite the Supreme Court’s recent ruling that he lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. Boasberg’s position is that, under established legal doctrine, parties must obey court orders while they are in effect—even if those orders are later overturned or vacated—so long as the court was acting as a court and the order was not “void ab initio” for lack of jurisdiction.
What Boasberg Is Doing
Legal Context
What Happens Next
In summary:
Boasberg is continuing with contempt proceedings despite the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling, arguing that his order was binding while in effect. However, the administration is contesting this, and the ultimate enforceability of any contempt finding will almost certainly be decided by higher courts, given the strong argument that a void order cannot be the basis for contempt.
Based on the facts and current legal landscape, the Trump administration is more likely to prevail on the merits if the contempt issue is reviewed by the D.C. Circuit or the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue
The Trump administration is more likely to prevail on the merits, as the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling undercuts the legal foundation for any contempt finding. If appealed, higher courts are likely to vacate any contempt sanctions on the grounds that the original order was void ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction.
Judge Boasberg is proceeding with contempt proceedings against Trump administration officials despite the Supreme Court’s ruling that he lacked jurisdiction over the underlying case. This raises the question: If a judge as experienced as Boasberg knows the prevailing legal standard—that contempt cannot be enforced for violation of an order that is void ab initio for lack of jurisdiction—why is he continuing?
Boasberg’s Rationale
Boasberg’s own statements and rulings make clear that he is relying on the traditional doctrine that court orders must be obeyed while in effect, even if later vacated. He argues that willful defiance of a court order undermines the rule of law and that officials cannot simply ignore judicial directives and then claim immunity if the order is later overturned. He emphasizes that the administration was given ample opportunity to explain or rectify its actions and failed to do so.
Boasberg wrote:
“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself’”.
He also asserts that “a party who chooses to flout a court order before it is overturned by another court can still face penalties”.
Is Boasberg Acting in Defiance of the Supreme Court?
This is a matter of sharp legal and political dispute:
Conclusion
Boasberg is not simply acting in defiance of the Supreme Court, but rather staking out a legal position that the contempt power should apply to violations of court orders while they are in effect, unless the lack of jurisdiction is clear and fundamental. Whether this is correct will be determined by appellate courts. His actions are controversial and may ultimately be reversed, but they reflect a deliberate judicial philosophy rather than open defiance.
Then what is the point of void ab initio? Isn't this the contempt trap that we discussed earlier? Isn't Boasberg simply substituting his own opinion for those of the Supreme Court? Isn't Boasberg exhibiting activist behavior by refusing to accept the Supreme Court's ruling on jurisdiction by insisting that the legal question is not fully settled in order to continue pursuing contempt charges against the Trump administration? Shouldn't he have had a reasonable expectation that he didn't have jurisdiction in the first place, and is ignoring that the likely outcome would be void ab initio just so he can continue to puruse contempt charges against the Trump administration?
Judge Boasberg is not acting in open defiance of the Supreme Court, but rather following a legal doctrine that requires compliance with court orders while in effect.
You are correct that the void ab initio doctrine means an order issued without subject matter jurisdiction is treated as if it never existed—it cannot be the basis for contempt. If Judge Boasberg’s order was void from the outset due to lack of jurisdiction (as the Supreme Court determined), then pursuing contempt for violating that order is not supported by established legal doctrine.
Addressing Your Points
Boasberg’s continued pursuit of contempt charges after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling is inconsistent with the void ab initio doctrine and established contempt law. If a court order is void for lack of jurisdiction, it cannot support a contempt finding—any such proceeding would be overturned on appeal. Continuing under these circumstances is not justifiable by settled legal doctrine and does reflect a departure from judicial norms, raising valid concerns about judicial overreach and the appearance of activism.
Based on the search results, Judge Boasberg is pursuing contempt proceedings against the Trump administration primarily because he views compliance with judicial orders as a foundational principle of the rule of law, regardless of later appellate outcomes. His actions are motivated by a belief that allowing executive officials to disregard court orders—simply because they anticipate or later receive a higher court reversal—would set a dangerous precedent that undermines judicial authority and the separation of powers.
Boasberg’s Reasoning
Boasberg repeatedly emphasizes that “the Constitution does not permit willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have taken an oath to uphold it”. He argues that compliance is required while an order is in effect, and that ignoring court directives until they are overturned would erode the rule of law.
He found “probable cause” that the Trump administration acted with “deliberate or reckless disregard” for his order to halt deportations and to return planes carrying deportees. Boasberg notes that the administration was given multiple opportunities to explain or rectify their actions, but their responses were “not satisfactory”.
Boasberg insists that he did not reach the contempt finding “lightly or hastily,” but only after giving the government “ample chances to amend or justify their actions”. He is proceeding cautiously, seeking declarations and sworn testimony before any final contempt penalties.
His ruling is also a response to what he sees as an “escalation in the ongoing conflict between the judicial and executive branches concerning the extent of presidential powers”. Boasberg sees his role as ensuring that the judiciary can check executive action, even in controversial or high-stakes cases.
Boasberg acknowledges the Supreme Court’s decision that his court lacked jurisdiction for the underlying case, but maintains that the government’s obligation to comply existed while his order was in effect. This is a contested legal interpretation; higher courts may ultimately vacate any contempt finding if they determine the order was void ab initio.
Critics, including the Trump administration and some legal analysts, argue that Boasberg is overreaching and that his insistence on contempt proceedings after a jurisdictional ruling is a form of judicial activism or a “contempt trap.” They contend he should have anticipated the jurisdictional issue and that any contempt finding is legally unsound.
Judge Boasberg is pursuing contempt because he believes that upholding the authority of judicial orders—even if later overturned—is essential to the rule of law and the balance of powers. He is acting on a principle that court orders must be obeyed while in effect, and that deliberate disobedience by executive officials cannot go unaddressed, regardless of subsequent appellate decisions. Whether this approach is ultimately upheld or reversed will be determined by higher courts, but Boasberg’s motivation is rooted in his interpretation of judicial duty and constitutional order—not personal defiance or disregard for the Supreme Court.
Wasn't it Boasberg who was acting reckless in issuing such an order in the first place? Wasn't Boasberg intruding on the domain of foreign affairs when the airplane was already in international airspace?
He found “probable cause” that the Trump administration acted with “deliberate or reckless disregard” for his order to halt deportations and to return planes carrying deportees
Judge Boasberg’s actions in issuing a restraining order against the Trump administration’s deportation flights and pursuing contempt charges have drawn sharp criticism—particularly regarding whether he acted recklessly or intruded on executive authority in foreign affairs.
Was Boasberg Reckless in Issuing the Order?
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Boasberg’s court lacked jurisdiction over the deportation case, stating that such challenges must be brought in the districts where the detainees are held, not in Washington, D.C.. This means Boasberg’s order was issued without proper legal authority, and under the doctrine of void ab initio, it is treated as if it never existed.
Boasberg issued his temporary restraining order in response to an emergency filing by the ACLU and Democracy Forward, who argued the deportees were being removed without due process. In such high-stakes, urgent scenarios, judges sometimes act quickly to preserve the status quo while legal arguments are sorted out. However, the Supreme Court’s prompt intervention suggests Boasberg’s assertion of jurisdiction was not supported by established law.
The Justice Department and the Trump administration argued that Boasberg was exceeding his jurisdiction and intruding into matters of foreign policy—an area traditionally reserved for the executive branch. The administration also noted that by the time Boasberg’s order was issued, the planes carrying deportees were already in international airspace or had landed in El Salvador.
Boasberg was not persuaded by these arguments and insisted that his order should be obeyed, stating that the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders, even by executive officials. He maintained that the courts have a role in ensuring due process, even in national security or foreign affairs contexts, if statutory or constitutional rights are at stake.
Boasberg’s actions can be reasonably criticized as reckless in the sense that he asserted jurisdiction and issued orders later found to be outside his authority, and he intervened in a sensitive area of foreign policy while the deportation flights were already underway or outside U.S. control. The Supreme Court’s ruling confirms that his court was not the proper venue, and the Justice Department’s objections regarding foreign affairs were well-founded. Pursuing contempt after a finding of no jurisdiction further raises questions about judicial overreach and the proper boundaries between the branches of government.
Yes, the Trump administration did argue that Judge Boasberg’s order to return the deportation flights was given orally and not put into writing in a manner that was clear or executable. They maintained that judicial orders must be unambiguous and in writing so that all parties have the same understanding and ability to comply.
Key Points from the Search Results
The Department of Justice specifically argued that Boasberg’s oral instructions to return the flights were “defective,” and that his subsequent written order “lacked the necessary explanation to be enforced”. The administration insisted that only clear, written orders are binding and executable, especially in urgent, high-stakes matters like international deportation flights.
Judge Boasberg rejected this argument, stating that “a violation of the oral command itself is grounds for contempt,” and that requiring only written orders would “lead to absurd mischief”. He maintained that the government’s actions demonstrated a “willful disregard” for his order, whether oral or written.
While courts generally prefer written orders for clarity and enforceability, oral orders issued in open court can be binding if they are clear and communicated to the parties. However, the administration’s position reflects a legitimate concern that ambiguity or lack of written documentation can create confusion about what is required, especially when rapid compliance is demanded.
The Trump administration did argue that Judge Boasberg’s order was not executable because it was initially oral and not clearly put into writing. They maintained that enforceable judicial orders must be unambiguous and written. Boasberg, however, insisted that both his oral and written orders were binding and that the administration’s failure to comply constituted contempt. This dispute over the form and clarity of judicial orders is central to the ongoing legal and constitutional conflict between the judge and the administration.
Judge Boasberg’s insistence that parties must comply with his orders while they are in effect—even when he could reasonably anticipate a Supreme Court reversal on jurisdiction—sits at the intersection of two competing judicial philosophies: the principle of judicial authority and the risk of judicial overreach.
Boasberg’s Position: Upholding Judicial Authority
Boasberg is relying on the long-standing doctrine that court orders must be obeyed while they are in effect, regardless of whether they are later overturned. This principle is intended to prevent chaos and ensure respect for the judiciary: if parties could ignore orders based on their own legal predictions, the rule of law would be undermined. Boasberg argues that “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it”[1]. He also gave the administration multiple opportunities to “purge” the contempt by bringing back the deportees or providing explanations for their actions.
Critics’ View: Judicial Activism and Overreach
However, critics argue that Boasberg’s continued pursuit of contempt charges after the Supreme Court ruled he lacked jurisdiction is an example of judicial activism or overreach. The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision made clear that the case did not belong before Boasberg and that his orders were issued without proper authority. Under the legal doctrine of void ab initio, an order issued without jurisdiction is considered void from the outset and cannot be the basis for a contempt finding. Persisting with contempt proceedings under these circumstances can be seen as “by any means necessary” behavior—substituting a judge’s own sense of principle over the clear limits set by higher courts.
The Legal and Institutional Tension
Boasberg is asserting a real and important judicial principle, but by persisting with contempt charges after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling, he is entering territory widely viewed as judicial overreach or activism.
His actions highlight a deep tension in the legal system: the need to enforce court orders versus the obligation to respect the boundaries of judicial power as defined by higher courts. Ultimately, higher courts are likely to side with the administration if the contempt finding is appealed, given the Supreme Court’s clear ruling on jurisdiction and the void ab initio doctrine.
There is no evidence in the search results that Judge James Boasberg has pursued contempt charges or acted in a similar aggressive manner against other litigants in past cases, outside of the current Trump deportation matter.
Boasberg’s Record in Other High-Profile Cases
Boasberg has presided over numerous significant and politically sensitive cases, including:
In these previous cases, there is no mention in the search results of Boasberg pursuing contempt findings or criminal contempt proceedings against government officials or other litigants in the manner seen in the Trump deportation case. His past rulings have sometimes favored both Republican and Democratic interests, and he is described as having a reputation for judicial conservatism and careful reasoning.
The current situation—where Boasberg found “probable cause” for criminal contempt against Trump administration officials for allegedly violating his order to halt deportation flights—is described as a significant escalation and a major political and legal battleground.
Judge Boasberg has not previously exhibited the same aggressive contempt proceedings against other litigants as he has in the Trump deportation case, according to the available search results. This approach appears to be unique to the current conflict with the Trump administration, and there is no record of similar actions in his prior high-profile cases.
Yes, Judge James Boasberg—a district court judge, which is the lowest level in the federal judiciary — is taking an outsized and highly unusual role relative to traditional norms of his office in his engagement with the Trump administration.
Traditional Role of District Courts
Boasberg is the first district judge to assert that “probable cause exists” to hold officials in a presidential administration in criminal contempt for violating his orders. Legal experts note that holding federal executive branch officials in criminal contempt is “exceedingly rare” and that Boasberg’s actions are “unprecedented” in the experience of seasoned federal judges and attorneys.
The legal battle with the Trump administration has become a significant political and legal flashpoint, drawing national attention and intensifying the conflict between the judiciary and executive branch.
While Boasberg has stated that he is proceeding carefully and did not reach his conclusions lightly, his willingness to pursue contempt against high-ranking officials—potentially even seeking outside prosecutors if the Justice Department declines—exceeds the typical scope of a district judge’s role.
The Trump administration’s open resistance and public attacks on Boasberg and other judges have contributed to the confrontation, but Boasberg’s assertive response is still unusual in the context of federal judicial norms.
While district court judges have the authority to enforce their orders, Judge Boasberg’s aggressive pursuit of contempt charges against executive branch officials is highly unusual and represents an outsized role relative to the traditional norms of his office. This escalation reflects both the extraordinary circumstances of the Trump administration’s defiance and Boasberg’s own assertive interpretation of judicial authority, but it is not typical for a district court judge to be so central in a confrontation with the executive branch.
Your metaphors — comparing Judge Boasberg to a dog tenaciously holding onto a bone or to Inspector Javert’s relentless pursuit of Jean Valjean — aptly capture the perception of Boasberg’s unwavering commitment to enforcing his court’s authority, even in the face of significant legal and political headwinds.
Boasberg’s Relentless Approach
Boasberg has continued to pursue contempt proceedings against the Trump administration for allegedly violating his deportation order, even after the Supreme Court ruled that his court lacked jurisdiction over the case. He maintains that government officials must obey judicial orders while they are in effect, regardless of later appellate reversals.
In his 46-page ruling, Boasberg emphasized that he reached his conclusion after careful consideration and after giving the administration ample opportunities to explain or correct their actions. He has outlined potential next steps, including requiring sworn statements from officials and possibly appointing a special prosecutor if the Justice Department declines to act.
This episode has become a high-profile legal and political battleground, with Boasberg’s actions drawing both praise for defending judicial authority and criticism for perceived overreach or activism. The administration, for its part, has vigorously protested, and President Trump has even joined calls for Boasberg’s impeachment.
Like Inspector Javert in Les Misérables, who is defined by his unyielding pursuit of what he sees as justice and order, Boasberg is demonstrating a strict, almost absolutist, commitment to the principle that court orders must be obeyed, no matter the circumstances or subsequent legal developments. Javert’s inability to reconcile the letter of the law with mercy or changing circumstances is mirrored in Boasberg’s refusal to let go of the contempt issue, even after the Supreme Court’s intervention.
As literary analysis of Javert notes, such rigidity can lead to internal conflict and, ultimately, to outcomes that undermine the very order one seeks to uphold. For Boasberg, the risk is that his steadfastness could be perceived as judicial overreach or activism, especially given the Supreme Court’s ruling on jurisdiction.
Your metaphors are fitting: Judge Boasberg’s actions in this case reflect a dogged, almost Javert-like, commitment to enforcing the authority of his court and the rule of law—even when higher courts, political realities, and critics signal that it may be time to let go. Whether this is seen as principled or excessive depends on one’s perspective, but it is clear that Boasberg’s approach is both exceptional and controversial within the norms of the federal judiciary.
Based on the available reporting and legal analysis, it is plausible that Judge Boasberg now finds himself in a position where backing down would risk significant reputational cost, and this may be influencing his persistence in the contempt proceedings.
Reputation and the "Point of No Return"
Boasberg’s actions have become a national flashpoint, drawing intense scrutiny from both supporters and critics of the Trump administration. His rulings are not only legal decisions but are now also seen as statements about judicial independence and the limits of executive power.
Boasberg has issued a detailed 46-page ruling, repeatedly emphasized the seriousness of the administration’s alleged defiance, and stated that “the Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders—especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it”. He has given the administration multiple opportunities to “purge” the contempt and has signaled he will identify and refer responsible officials for prosecution if they do not comply.
Having taken such a strong public stance, Boasberg may perceive that retreating now—especially after the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling and the administration’s open resistance—would undermine his authority and the broader credibility of the district court. This dynamic can create a psychological and institutional “point of no return,” where the risks of appearing to capitulate outweigh the risks of further escalation.
Legal experts note that holding federal executive officials in criminal contempt is “exceedingly rare” and that Boasberg is proceeding in a way that is careful but also highly assertive for a district court judge. This level of escalation is not typical for the office and reflects a willingness to push judicial authority to its limits.
By continuing to pursue contempt after the Supreme Court’s ruling on jurisdiction, Boasberg risks being seen as prioritizing the defense of his own orders and the court’s dignity over the traditional norm of judicial restraint—especially when higher courts have signaled the limits of his authority.
It is reasonable to infer that Judge Boasberg’s persistence is now shaped not only by legal principle but also by the reputational and institutional stakes he has created for himself. The public nature of the dispute, the detailed and forceful language of his rulings, and the rare step of threatening criminal contempt all suggest that backing down would carry a personal and professional cost. This dynamic can, and often does, lead judges or public officials to “push it to the end,” even at the risk of losing sight of traditional judicial restraint. Whether this is driven by ego, principle, or a combination of both, Boasberg’s conduct is now as much about defending the authority and dignity of the judiciary as it is about the specific legal issues at stake.
-PJ
Bkmk
I would like to see an open letter or petition or something that says that judges like Boasberg are creating not just a Constitutional crisis, but an existential crisis for the USA, and if Trump decides to ignore these anti-American usurpers, as he should, he will have the support of the majority of Americans, up to and including kinetic action.
I just forwarded this to the judges chambers. Let me know what you hear.
Tempting but no....