Judge James Boasberg’s refusal on Monday morning to lift his injunction barring President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans throws into sharp relief the development of a new strategy — disqualify the judges blocking the administration’s agenda.  

The latest petition to remove a judge from a case argues that a United States district judge of the District of Columbia, Judge Beryl Howell, ruled that parts of Mr. Trump’s executive order penalizing the Perkins Coie law firm were so unlawful as to send “little chills” down her spine. She reckoned that the order’s terms amounted to “pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise.”  

The motion, filed by the Department of Justice, accuses Judge Howell of having “repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the president” and declares: “This court has not kept its disdain for President Trump secret. It has voiced its thoughts loudly — both inside and outside the courtroom.” The DOJ, led by Attorney General Bondi, aims to “curtail ongoing improper encroachments of President Trump’s Executive Power.”

Judge Howell enjoined the order against Perkins with especially vivid language, comparing the 47th president to the Queen of Hearts in “Alice in Wonderland,” who was wont to declare, “Off with their heads,” but insisting that this “cannot be the reality we are living.” The DOJ’s motion accuses Judge Howell, in past cases, of  “wrongly suggesting in public that President Trump is an authoritarian; and incorrectly finding that President Trump — the most well known man on Earth — presents a flight risk.”  

Federal law mandates that a federal judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and that recusal is required when a judge “has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” The Supreme Court has decided that in evaluating recusal for federal judges — but not high court justices — what matters is “not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.”

The DOJ requests that Judge Howell, who has adjudicated matters related to January 6 and both the Mueller and Durham investigations, step aside in favor of a “judge free from any appearance of hostility toward this Administration.” If Judge Howell declines that invitation to step aside, the administration can appeal that decision to the Fourth United States Appeals Circuit.

A similar disqualification effort is afoot against a district court judge in Maryland, James Boasberg. Judge Boasberg has interrogated the administration’s deportation, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to El Salvador of more than 200 Venezuelans who are allegedly members of the Tren de Agua gang. The judge ordered flights carrying those migrants to be turned around pending a final ruling. That did not happen. 

Judge Boasberg on Friday vowed, “I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order — who ordered this and what the consequences will be.” The DOJ argues that it did not knowingly defy Judge Boasberg’s written order, which was issued when the flights had already departed. Mr. Trump’s immigration tsar, Tom Homan, told Fox News: “We’re not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think.”

The judge on Monday declined to rescind his restraining order, reckoning that the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed” in their argument that “they are entitled to individualized hearings” with respect to their deportations. He writes that “as the Government itself concedes, the awesome power granted by the Act may be brought to bear only on those who are, in fact, ‘alien enemies.’” 

Judge Boasberg also found that “the evidence at this point shows a likelihood of potential torture” should the Venezeulans “be removed to El Salvador and be incarcerated there.”  

Judge Boasberg has been scathing in his criticism of the government’s conduct in the case, castigating the DOJ for employing “intemperate, disrespectful language” and reckoning: “The policy ramifications of this are incredibly troublesome and problematic and concerning.” Judge Boasberg also noted that his order does not prevent Mr. Trump “from removing anyone … through other immigration authorities.”    

Mr. Trump last week took to Truth Social to explain: “I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!” That drew a rebuke from Chief Justice Roberts, who in a statement asserted, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

The chief justice referred Mr. Trump to the “normal appellate review process” as the proper venue to challenge Judge Boasberg’s rulings. Yet a Republican lawmaker of Texas, Congressman Brandon Gill, has introduced articles of impeachment in the House of Representatives against Judge Boasberg. Those articles have garnered 16 co-sponsors, including Congresswomen Lauren Boebert and Marjorie Taylor-Greene. 

Mr. Gill tells CBS News that Judge Boasberg “has abused his power of the judiciary, weaponized the judiciary, politicized it, to usurp President Trump’s clear plenary, Article II powers as commander in chief.” His bill accuses the judge of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and says he “violated his oath to the Constitution and duty of impartiality to the people of the United States.”

The Constitution provides that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” and that the power reaches all of the “civil Officers of the United States” — which includes federal judges — who are convicted of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” The parchment also ordains: “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.”