Wait - Boasberg Did What Now?

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that when most readers see a RedState headline referencing D.C. District Court Judge James Boasberg, they assume they're about to learn of yet another ruling against the Trump administration. Why wouldn't they? That seems to be the order of the day with many — if not most — of the District Court judges presiding over cases involving the administration. And Boasberg's enmity for the president (and his policies) hasn't been hard to suss out from his prior rulings. 

But I'm here to offer a bit of a surprise: Judge Boasberg actually ruled in favor of the administration last week. Yep. You read that correctly. 

Now...reading between the lines of his ruling, he did so grudgingly, but he did actually grant the administration's motion to dismiss in a case involving the removal of illegal aliens to El Salvador. (And no, to clarify, this is not in the infamous J.G.G. v. Trump case with the planes ordered to turn around — that one lives on. This case is styled Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State.)

---

ALSO SEE: Boasberg's at It Again: Judge Changes Grand Jury Rules After Democrats Avoid Indictments

New: Activist Judge Halts DOJ Powell Probe, and Guess Who It Is

---

Here's the back story, as set forth in Boasberg's ruling:

In March 2025, the United States began transferring individuals from its custody to detention facilities in El Salvador. Those transfers followed a diplomatic understanding between the two governments and were accompanied by funding to support the individuals’ confinement abroad. Organizations that provide legal and related services to those affected — and to others who may face the same fate — have challenged that Agreement, contending that it violates a host of statutory and constitutional constraints. They now move for summary judgment to set aside the Agreement and clear the cloud of uncertainty looming over their work and clients. The Government responds by moving to dismiss and, in the alternative, for summary judgment. It maintains that Plaintiffs lack standing, that the Agreement is not subject to judicial review, and that it represents a lawful exercise of the Executive’s foreign-affairs authority.

The judge isn't coy regarding his view of the arrangement: 

The Agreement changed the external environment in which these organizations operated. It set the stage for the transfer of individuals from the United States to detention in Salvadoran prisons, where inmates are not only placed in “poor living conditions” and “disciplined through beatings and humiliation,” J.G.G., 772 F. Supp. 3d at 42, but also have little to no access to counsel. See Pls. MSJ at 25

He determines that the plaintiff organizations are injured by this in that it interferes with attorney-client relationships and disrupts the services the organizations are set up to provide. 

But the judge determines that even given that, the question of "whether vacating the Agreement would deprive Defendants of the legal authority to keep rendering individuals to El Salvador or change the practical odds of Defendants doing so" is one that must be answered in the negative. Basically, he reasons, the Agreement is "a nonbinding diplomatic exchange of notes that, by definition, creates no legal obligations and confers no new authority," thus, "It follows that vacating the Agreement, which carries no legal force of its own, would not alter the legal landscape in a way that meaningfully bears on the injury-producing conduct."

Ultimately, Boasberg reasons, vacating the Agreement would not accomplish what the plaintiffs seek to accomplish:

The practical consequences of vacatur confirm that it would accomplish little. Whether the Agreement consists of the diplomatic notes or the broader discussions Rubio described, the result of vacatur would be the same. The two governments have already reached a meeting of the minds to transfer individuals from the United States to Salvadoran prisons in exchange for funds. See Mar. 14 Diplomatic Note at 1. That shared understanding does not dissolve were a court to set aside the Agreement. And with the understanding in place, the Government need only reach for the tools it already has — DHS’s statutory removal authority and State’s foreign assistance funding — to execute the same transfers again. Vacatur of the Agreement, in short, would leave the two governments exactly where they are: in possession of shared interests, the legal means to act on them, and a process of rendition and payment that they have already put in practice.

And thus, reluctantly, Judge Boasberg observes, "Because the relief Plaintiffs seek would not likely redress their injuries, the Court must dismiss their claims for lack of standing."

...But not without providing the plaintiffs a potential roadmap for mounting a new challenge.

Rather than challenging the diplomatic understanding between the U.S. and El Salvador, the judge suggests the government's "implementing actions" — i.e., the DHS removal decisions and the State Department's funding actions — "are the proper focus of APA review." In fact, notes Judge Boasberg, "A plaintiff who could show that one of those actions was arbitrary, contrary to statute, or beyond statutory authority would have a cognizable APA claim." 

You can almost hear the sigh that surely accompanied Boasberg's conclusion here: 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. A separate Order so stating will issue this day

But, as I've grown fond of saying in covering the multitude of lawsuits involving the Trump administration: A win's a win. 

Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people.