Washington, D.C. — A major political shockwave hit Capitol Hill today after federal judge James Boasberg — an Obama-appointed judge known for issuing multiple rulings blocking former President Donald Trump’s actions — formally refused to testify at tomorrow’s high-profile Senate hearing on so-called “activist judges.”
The refusal came through an official letter sent to Senate leadership, stating that long-standing judicial ethics rules prohibit sitting judges from appearing before Congress to defend, explain, or justify their past rulings. According to the letter, Judge Boasberg emphasized that federal judges must remain independent from political pressure, and participating in such a hearing could undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
The Senate Judiciary Committee had scheduled the hearing amid growing partisan tension, with several lawmakers accusing certain federal judges of engaging in political activism from the bench. Judge Boasberg, currently serving as the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was one of the central figures invited to testify, largely because of his past decisions involving high-profile political cases.
Sources inside the committee say members were expecting Judge Boasberg to reject the invitation, but the timing of the refusal — just 24 hours before the hearing — has intensified the political spotlight on the event. Senior Senate aides confirmed that, despite the judge’s absence, the hearing will proceed as scheduled, with the committee planning to question legal scholars, former judges, and policy experts on the issue of judicial impartiality.
In response to the refusal, several senators issued statements throughout the afternoon. Some Republican lawmakers criticized the decision, arguing that federal judges should be transparent and willing to explain the reasoning behind decisions that significantly impact national policy. They claimed that declining to appear before Congress shows an unwillingness to face public accountability.
However, other senators defended Judge Boasberg’s stance, pointing out that judicial ethics rules exist specifically to prevent political branches from exerting influence over the courts. They argued that requiring sitting judges to testify about their rulings would set a dangerous precedent, potentially threatening judicial independence.
Legal analysts note that it is extremely rare for sitting federal judges to testify in hearings focused on their decisions. Historically, such appearances only occur under extraordinary circumstances or when judges are addressing administrative issues unrelated to specific rulings.
With Judge Boasberg’s refusal now official, tomorrow’s Senate hearing is expected to shift its focus toward broader debates about judicial conduct, the role of the courts, and the growing political scrutiny surrounding the federal judiciary. Political observers anticipate that the absence of the key figure originally requested to appear will heighten tensions between the legislative and judicial branches.
As the situation continues developing, both parties are preparing for a contentious and closely watched hearing, one that may influence future discussions about judicial power, federal oversight, and the boundaries between law and politics in the United States.
