James E. Boasberg

A sealed federal search warrant tied to Rep. Ilhan Omar is the subject of three applications to unseal it: from news organizations including the New York Times, and from Judicial Watch. All three are before Chief Judge Boasberg. On October 21, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (Jeanine Ferris Pirro) asked him to hold off: “good cause exists to extend these deadlines until after the subject search warrant has been fully executed,” with one response deadline “to be established after execution of the search warrant is complete.” DOJ’s reasons went into a memorandum it asked to file “under seal and ex parte,” meaning only the judge sees it. Its fallback date was November 9. “The Applicants oppose.” A DOJ errata the same day corrected its claim that it got notice on October 16: press counsel had emailed Criminal Division supervisors on the afternoon of October 15. Sources: DOJ motion (26-mc-144, Doc 3) · Archive · Errata (Doc 4) · Archive.

The New York Times’ position, attached to DOJ’s motion in its own words: “We are also perplexed regarding what ‘execution’ you refer to. As has been well-publicized, the Government executed the search warrant on October 12, 2026, and subpoenas have been served on Rep. Omar’s family members.” The search date and the subpoenas are the Times’ assertions. Source: NYT position (Doc 3-1) · Archive.

Update, October 22: Boasberg ruled that DOJ’s motion “is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.” He did not wait for the warrant to be “fully executed.” He ordered the government in all three cases to respond by October 27, 2026 (its response “may argue in part that the Court should not address the matter yet”), applicants to reply by October 30, and any opposition to consolidating the cases by October 27. In separate orders he let DOJ file its memorandum sealed and ex parte, adding: “In the event that the Court, after review, believes that a redacted version of the Government’s memorandum should be filed on the public record, it will so order.” Sources: 26-mc-147 docket · 26-mc-145 docket.

The Daily Wire reported the October 27 deadline and described Boasberg as a judge “who has repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration in other cases.” Source: Daily Wire.

The DSCC, DCCC and Democratic Governors Association, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Nevada State Democratic Party and voter Erick Jose Jimenez sued President Trump, DOJ, Attorney General Todd Blanche, DHS and Secretary Markwayne Mullin on October 20, 2026. Lead counsel is Marc E. Elias of the Elias Law Group. The four counts are ultra vires executive action, violation of the vertical separation of powers, anticommandeering, and Voting Rights Act § 11(b). The same day, Elias signed a notice designating the case related to Trujillo v. DHS, No. 1:26-cv-03072, checking the boxes for “common issues of fact” and “grows out of the same event or transaction.” Trujillo had been randomly reassigned to Boasberg that day. On October 21 the docket shows: “Case Assigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg.” The entry does not say whether the assignment was as a related case or random. Under Local Civil Rule 40.5, related cases generally go to the judge with the earlier case, and a defendant may object to the designation. Sources: Complaint · Archive · Related-case notice · Archive · Docket.

Since then, Boasberg granted plaintiffs’ pro hac vice and sealing motions (October 22). On October 23 the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to expedite discovery against the administration, and Boasberg set a Zoom scheduling hearing for October 26 at 10:30 a.m. (Eastern). No merits ruling has issued. Source: Docket.

AP, via NBC News, reported the suit was “assigned to Chief Judge James Boasberg” and carried DOJ’s response. Source: NBC News.

On October 19, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan rejected the plaintiffs’ attempt to mark this case related to her SAVE case and ordered random reassignment. On October 20 the clerk entered: “Case randomly reassigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg as the case is not related.” The docket says the draw was random, and this site does not suggest anyone steered it. That day Boasberg ordered a scheduling conference for October 21 by Zoom. After the conference, his October 21 minute order set: “1) Plaintiffs shall file a Superseding TRO Motion by October 22, 2026; 2) The Government shall file any Opposition by October 26, 2026; 3) Plaintiffs shall file any Reply by October 28, 2026; and 4) The parties shall appear for a hearing by zoom (unless a party wishes to appear in person) on October 30, 2026, at 10:30 a.m.” (Eastern). The plaintiffs, CHIRLA and Pedro Trujillo, challenge DHS’s use of California’s voter roll. Source: CourtListener docket.

Unsealed court records show Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team, investigating the classified-documents case (18 U.S.C. §§ 793(e), 2071, 1519, 1001, 1623), applied for a pen register and trap-and-trace device on one AT&T cellphone. Then-Chief Judge Beryl Howell signed the first order on February 10, 2023. On April 11, 2023, a “Second Application” was granted by an order signed “CHIEF JUDGE BOASBERG”: 60 more days of tracking dialing, routing and signaling data, plus call and text details from April 9, 2023. The order bars AT&T from disclosing “the existence of the application and the Court’s Order, the pen-trap device, or the investigation to any person.” The order’s finding is that “an attorney for the government has submitted the Application for Order and has certified that the information likely to be obtained … is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.” A pen register records who is contacted and when, not the content of calls. The phone number and user are redacted. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3123(a)(1), a judge “shall” enter the order once the government makes that certification. The applications in the released records do not mention defense lawyers. Sources: Court-stamped records (Doc 475 / 475-1) · Archive copy · CourtListener docket.

Just the News (Oct. 9, 2026) reported that an administration official identified the phone’s user as Susie Wiles, now White House chief of staff, and that the monitoring “picked up records of Wiles’s contacts with 21 defense lawyers, journalists and campaign advisors.” The released records redact the user’s name. Just the News discloses that its co-founder John Solomon chairs the White House task force that released the records. Source: Just the News.

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.