Chief Judge James Boasberg has been accused of exceeding his judicial authority in multiple cases, even as he has criticized former President Donald Trump for similar overreach. These allegations have led to an appeal by pro-life groups who claim their free speech rights were violated.
In a recent case, pro-life organizations were arrested for writing "Black Pre-Born Lives Matter" in chalk on a sidewalk. This occurred while similar writings by Black Lives Matter protesters were left untouched. The groups allege this constitutes biased enforcement of laws and a violation of their First Amendment rights.
Boasberg dismissed the groups' claims twice without a trial, finding they did not present sufficient evidence of selective enforcement. However, the D.C. appellate court has ordered him to reconsider the case, citing that Boasberg applied the wrong legal standard in his initial dismissal. The appellate court stated that the First Amendment prohibits government discrimination based on viewpoint and applies to the enforcement of laws, not just legislation.
Reversals and Allegations
Legal scholar Jonathan Turley, writing for Fox News, detailed instances where Boasberg's rulings have been reversed by higher courts for alleged abuses of discretion. One such case involved the Trump administration's deportation flights, where Boasberg was found to have overstepped his authority in a contempt of court finding.
Turley also criticized Boasberg's dismissal of grand jury subpoenas in a probe involving Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, suggesting the judge's opinion in that matter displayed hostility towards Trump and relied on dubious sources. "While chastising President Donald Trump for exceeding his authority, Boasberg has been reversed for exceeding his own," Turley wrote.
In the chalk graffiti case, the appellate court specifically expressed dissatisfaction with Boasberg's reasoning, noting that he imposed an "invidious enforcement" standard that was not appropriate for a free speech challenge. The court stated that Boasberg rejected the factual claim that the pro-life groups were similarly situated to BLM protesters, relying on his subjective view of the evidence rather than accepting all material facts in favor of the nonmoving party, as required when seeking dismissal before a trial.
The pro-life groups presented evidence, including bodycam footage, allegedly showing police officers witnessing defacement of property during BLM protests while not intervening. They also claimed to have presented guidance from police officials regarding different treatment for graffiti. Boasberg, however, maintained that the groups did not show that officers witnessed specific defacement during BLM protests and declared no credible evidence was presented for differential treatment based on speech content.
Turley argued that a reasonable jury could conclude that there was differential treatment in law enforcement based on the content of the speech. He further suggested that Boasberg's actions in substituting his judgment for a jury's and disregarding legal standards for disfavored groups are as concerning as a judge who describes a president's claim of expansive powers as "awfully frightening."