Concerns about the impartiality of the federal judicial system surfaced this week after Missouri Sen. Eric Schmitt (R) publicly challenged the repeated assignment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg to several significant cases involving President Donald Trump.
Posting on X, Schmitt described the pattern as a “statistical impossibility” and accused the case assignment process of being rigged.
Schmitt’s message quickly drew attention within conservative political circles.
“Judge James Boasberg has somehow been assigned FOUR major Trump cases,” he wrote on Tuesday.
“A statistical impossibility. That isn’t ‘random.’ It’s rigged.”
Boasberg, who currently serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, has presided over multiple high-profile legal battles tied to Trump and his administration.
These cases include a challenge concerning the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act—a statute employed to deport criminal illegal immigrants deemed threats to national security.
In addition to immigration cases, Boasberg oversaw litigation relating to the preservation of communications on the encrypted messaging app Signal.
In March, he ordered Trump officials to save messages sent between March 11 and 15 connected to a sensitive military operation in Yemen.
This directive came amid concerns over potential violations of federal record-keeping laws, since Signal’s auto-delete feature risked erasing crucial government communications.
The frequency with which Boasberg has been assigned these cases has sparked growing skepticism among Republican lawmakers.
In response, Reps. Jim Jordan (R-OH), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chip Roy (R-TX) jointly penned a letter to the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, according to Trending Politics.
The letter calls for a detailed explanation of the court’s case assignment procedures, warning that the pattern “raises serious questions” about fairness and possible judicial bias.
Despite these allegations, court officials maintain that case assignments are random and follow established guidelines designed to prevent partiality.
They insist that Boasberg’s repeated role in Trump-related cases is coincidental, not intentional.
Boasberg’s background has also attracted scrutiny.
Appointed to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama in 2011, Boasberg graduated from Yale Law School and previously served on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), a secretive tribunal responsible for overseeing requests for surveillance warrants against foreign spies.
His experience in national security matters has made him a polarizing figure, particularly among conservatives wary of judicial activism.
The controversy has spilled over into public discourse, with some social media commentators demanding disciplinary action.
One X user wrote, “This judge needs to be disbarred… he is abusing his judicial power and this cannot continue!”
Others encouraged Schmitt to leverage his influence to investigate the assignment process further.
This dispute unfolds amid rising political tensions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
With multiple ongoing legal cases involving Trump, the fairness and transparency of the judicial system remain critical issues under intense public scrutiny.
Ultimately, the debate over Judge Boasberg’s repeated case assignments highlights the delicate balance between judicial independence and political pressures.
Whether these concerns will prompt procedural reforms or fade over time remains uncertain as both the political and legal battles continue to unfold.
