Boasberg Did What Now? – RedState
I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that when most readers see a RedState headline referencing DC District Court Judge James Boasberg, they assume they’re about to learn of another ruling against the Trump administration. Why wouldn’t they? This appears to be the order of the day as many – if not most – district court judges preside over cases involving the administration. And Boasberg’s enmity toward the president (and his policies) was not difficult to infer from his past decisions.
But I’m here to give you a little surprise: Judge Boasberg actually ruled in favor of the administration last week. Yeah. You read that right.
⚖️ In the case of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State (Moving to El Salvador) Judge James Boasberg‼️(DC) GRANTS Administrator’s Motion to Dismiss. [3/25]https://t.co/9hY10HqMOM
– Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) March 27, 2026
Now…reading between the lines of his decision, he did so reluctantly, but he actually granted the administration’s request to dismiss a case involving the removal of illegal aliens to El Salvador. (And no, to clarify, it is not in the famous JGG against Trump This is the case with planes that were ordered to turn around – this one continues. This case is stylish Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. State Department.)
SEE ALSO: Boasberg does it again: Judge changes grand jury rules after Democrats avoid indictments
New: Activist Judge Stops DOJ Powell Investigation and Guess Who It Is
Here is the story, as laid out in Boasberg’s decision:
In March 2025, the United States began transferring individuals from detention to detention centers in El Salvador. These transfers followed a diplomatic agreement between the two governments and were accompanied by funding to support the confinement of individuals abroad. Organizations that provide legal and related services to affected individuals – and others who may face the same fate – challenged the agreement, saying it violated a host of statutory and constitutional constraints. They are now seeking summary judgment to void the agreement and lift the cloud of uncertainty hanging over their work and their clients. The government responds by requesting dismissal of the case and, in the alternative, summary judgment. He argues that the plaintiffs lack standing, that the agreement is not subject to judicial review and that it represents a lawful exercise of executive authority over foreign affairs.
The judge is not shy about his views on the arrangement:
The Accord changed the external environment in which these organizations operated. He paved the way for the transfer of individuals from the United States to detention in Salvadoran prisons, where detainees are not only placed in “poor living conditions” and “disciplined through beatings and humiliation”, JGG772 F.Sup. 3d at age 42, but also have little or no access to an attorney. See please. MSJ at 25
It determines that the plaintiff organizations are harmed to the extent that it interferes with attorney-client relationships and disrupts the services the organizations are supposed to provide.
But the judge determines that even under these conditions, the question of “whether the cancellation of the agreement would deprive the defendants of the legal authority to continue to deliver individuals to El Salvador or would alter the practical chances of the defendants to do so” must be answered in the negative. Fundamentally, he explains, the agreement is “an exchange of non-binding diplomatic notes which, by definition, creates no legal obligations and confers no new authority,” so: “it follows that annulment of the agreement, which has no legal force in itself, would not alter the legal landscape in a way that would have a significant impact on harm-causing conduct.” »
Ultimately, Boasberg reasons, canceling the deal would not accomplish what the plaintiffs seek to accomplish:
The practical consequences of vacatur confirm that it would not achieve much. Whether the agreement consisted of diplomatic notes or the broader discussions described by Rubio, the result of vacatur would be the same. The two governments have already reached an agreement to transfer individuals from the United States to Salvadoran prisons in exchange for funds. See the diplomatic note of March 14, p. 1. This joint agreement does not dissolve if a court annuls the agreement. And once that agreement is in place, the government need only use the tools it already has — DHS’s legal deportation authority and state foreign aid funding — to execute the same transfers again. In short, the vacatur of the agreement would leave the two governments exactly where they are: in possession of common interests, the legal means to implement them, and a restitution and payment process that they have already put into practice.
And so, reluctantly, Judge Boasberg observes: “Because the relief plaintiffs seek would likely not repair their injuries, the Court must dismiss their claims for lack of standing.” »
…But not without providing plaintiffs with a potential road map to take on a new challenge.
Rather than questioning the diplomatic agreement between the United States and El Salvador, the judge suggests that the government’s “implementation actions” — that is, DHS removal decisions and State Department funding actions — “are the appropriate subject of APA review.” In fact, Judge Boasberg notes, “a plaintiff who could demonstrate that any of these actions was arbitrary, contrary to law, or beyond legal authority would have a recognizable APA claim.”
– Susie Moore ⚾️🌻🐶 (@SmoosieQ) March 30, 2026
You can almost hear the sigh here that surely accompanied Boasberg’s conclusion:
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. A separate order specifying this will be issued today
But, as I have delighted in saying while covering the multitude of lawsuits involving the Trump administration: a victory is a victory.
Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to end President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code STRUGGLE to benefit from 60% off your membership.
