James E. Boasberg

As FISC Presiding Judge, Boasberg issued an Opinion and Order in Docket Misc. 19-02 finding that the government breached its duty of candor on the Carter Page FISA applications. The March 4, 2020 opinion was followed by a March 5 corrected opinion/order and an April 3, 2020 order for further sworn reporting after an OIG Woods-procedures memorandum.

• Dec 2019 — DOJ OIG Crossfire Hurricane FISA review published; then-Presiding Judge Collyer had already directed the government to explain itself.
• Mar 4, 2020 — Boasberg Opinion and Order, Misc. 19-02 (candor breach).
• Mar 5, 2020 — Corrected opinion / covering order.
• Apr 3, 2020 — Further reporting order (JEB).

A FISC remedial finding about government filings on the Page applications. Not a criminal conviction. Not a finding that Boasberg signed the original Page warrants.

N/A — FISC opinion on a FISC remedial docket.

On August 19, 2020, Kevin E. Clinesmith pleaded guilty before Boasberg to one false-statement count, 18 U.S.C. §1001(a)(3), for altering a CIA liaison email used on the fourth Carter Page FISA application. On January 29, 2021, Boasberg sentenced him to 12 months’ probation and a $100 special assessment. The government’s sentencing memorandum asked for a sentence inside the 0–6 month guideline range. Boasberg was FISC’s presiding judge from January 2020 through May 2021, including on the day of the sentence.

• Aug 19, 2020 — Guilty plea (§1001).
• Jan 29, 2021 — Sentence: 12 months’ probation.
• Feb 2, 2021 — Judgment entered.

News reporting (CNN, National Law Journal) attributes courtroom remarks calling the conduct an “inappropriate shortcut”; those remarks are treated here as reported, not as a hosted transcript. The docket and judgment are the finding.

One false-statement count on an altered email. Not a standalone count titled FISA fraud. Soft sentence relative to the government’s request for time inside the guideline range. FISC-presiding overlap is calendar fact.

Sentence stood; no vacatur located for this file.

On March 15, 2025, in J.G.G. et al. v. Trump et al., No. 1:25-cv-00766 (D.D.C.), Chief Judge Boasberg issued temporary restraining orders freezing Alien Enemies Act removals for named plaintiffs and a provisional class under Proclamation 10903. He extended those TROs on March 28, 2025 (ECF 66). On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court vacated the March 15 minute orders and the March 28 extension (Trump v. J.G.G., 24A931): AEA challenges belong in habeas in the district of confinement; D.D.C. was the wrong venue.

• Mar 15, 2025 — TROs (named plaintiffs + provisional class).
• Mar 18, 2025 — H.Res. 229 introduced (impeachment articles; filing, not a House vote).
• Mar 24, 2025 — Memorandum opinion describing the emergency filing.
• Mar 28, 2025 — Extension order (ECF 66).
• Apr 7, 2025 — Supreme Court vacates the TROs and extension.

Class-scale freeze of an elected-branch removal tool under the Alien Enemies Act. Not a private contract dispute. Vacatur is a Supreme Court holding on venue / habeas path — not a merits endorsement of the proclamation.

Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931 (Apr 7, 2025): application to vacate granted; March 15, 2025 minute orders and March 28, 2025 extension vacated. Challenges to AEA removal must proceed in habeas where the detainee is held.

On April 16, 2025 — after the Supreme Court had vacated the TROs — Boasberg issued a memorandum opinion (ECF 81) finding probable cause that the government acted in criminal contempt of his March 15 TRO. Probable cause in a district-court memorandum is not a jury verdict and is not a public indictment located for this page.

• Apr 7, 2025 — SCOTUS vacates TROs.
• Apr 16, 2025 — ECF 81 probable-cause contempt opinion.
• Apr 14, 2026 — D.C. Circuit orders termination of criminal contempt proceedings.

Early-stage probable-cause finding on alleged TRO defiance. He wrote that a later Supreme Court determination that the TRO “suffered from a legal defect” does not, in his view, excuse an alleged violation while the order was in effect.

See Circuit mandamus — Apr 14, 2026 termination order.

The D.C. Circuit granted mandamus, vacated the district court’s December 8, 2025 order, and directed Chief Judge Boasberg to terminate criminal contempt proceedings in No. 1:25-cv-00766. Opinion by Circuit Judge Rao, joined in the judgment by Circuit Judge Walker (concurrence). Circuit Judge Childs dissented.

• Dec 8, 2025 — District-court order later vacated on mandamus.
• Apr 14, 2026 — Mandamus granted; terminate criminal contempt proceedings.

The per curiam order directs the district court “to terminate its criminal contempt proceedings in this case.” Rao wrote that criminal contempt requires a clear and specific order, and that the March 15, 2025 TRO did not clearly and specifically bar transfer of the plaintiffs into Salvadoran custody. Walker’s concurrence distinguishes the oral command from the written order.

Court of appeals ending the contempt chapter. Not a merits ruling on the Alien Enemies Act proclamation itself.

This is the higher-court result for the contempt track.