James E. Boasberg
How Judge Boasberg decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In APA unreasonable-delay (TRAC) cases he anchors on duration: immigration/visa delays under about a year are generally not unreasonable, and the resource-allocation / 'no line-jumping' factor often controls. Plaintiffs seeking to compel a visa decision in months will usually lose.
“District courts have generally found that immigration delays in excess of five, six, seven years are unreasonable, while those between three to five years are often not unreasonable.”
He reads regulatory/statutory terms by their ordinary meaning unless it is obvious a technical term-of-art was intended -- an industry-specific gloss will not displace common usage.
“unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning”
Procedural preferences
At summary judgment a plaintiff seeking prospective injunctive relief carries the burden to prove the challenged policy STILL exists; evidence tied to officials who left years earlier, or to past conduct, will not establish standing for forward-looking relief.
“It is her burden, not Defendant's, to prove that the policy remains in existence and that her future injuries are traceable to that same policy.”
He will not let a party expand the operative complaint through summary-judgment briefing; the theory pled is the theory decided.
“As she cannot amend her Complaint through summary-judgment briefing, Phillips's Motion does not succeed.”
Cautions
In national-security / foreign-affairs agency review (OFAC sanctions designations) he applies the 'extremely deferential' substantial-evidence standard and will rely on a classified record reviewed in camera; challengers should expect the merits route to be steep and the administrative delisting process flagged as the better avenue.
“The Court's function, however, is only to search for substantial evidence, not proof positive.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motions to dismiss N = 10 |
Granted: 5Granted in part: 3Denied: 2 | 80% granted |
| Summary judgment N = 6 |
Granted: 2Granted in part: 1Denied: 2Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for reconsideration N = 5 |
Granted: 1Granted in part: 1Denied: 3 | counts only |
| Motion to compel arbitration N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for stay pending appeal N = 1 |
Granted: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. A separate Order will issue this day.”
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Salguero's Motion to Dismiss. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.”
“the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and grant in part and deny in part Defendant's. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.”
“The Court will accordingly deny Plaintiff's Motion and will focus on the only D.C. policy that is properly before it”
“the Court will grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and deny Plaintiffs' Motion. A separate Order so stating will issue this day.”
“It thus will grant the Government's Cross-Motion and deny Plaintiffs'.”
“As Plaintiff essentially concedes these principal issues and instead relies on a theory absent from the Amended Complaint, the Court will grant the Motion.”
“Although the Court is sympathetic to HHS's position that Judicial Watch seeks too much, it cannot say that the request does not reasonably identify the records at issue. While it will thus deny the Motion, the Court encourages the parties to work together towards narrowing the request.”
“As the fiduciary-duty theory is lacking, the Court will dismiss that portion of the Complaint without prejudice and grant leave to amend. The negligence theory, however, is sufficient to survive Compass's Motion.”
“The third time is the charm, as the Court sides with the Board members and finds that the relevant factors weigh in favor of a partial stay. It will, accordingly, grant Defendants' Motion.”
“Both Hudson and AFGE now seek reconsideration of that Opinion. Sticking to its ruling, the Court will deny both Motions.”
“Both Hudson and AFGE now seek reconsideration of that Opinion. Sticking to its ruling, the Court will deny both Motions.”
“the Court now agrees that the material could be used to circumvent the law and will thus grant the Motion.”
“Because neither ground supports relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), the Court will deny the Motion.”
“Although some of Plaintiffs' confusion is perplexing, the Court agrees that it must address the merits of the delay issue. To so do, it will require additional briefing.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Sampled recent assignments (filed 2026, mostly pending) span FOIA (e.g. Vargas v. NTSB), APA/agency 'Other Statutory Actions' (e.g. Conservation Law Foundation v. Trump, Eshleman v. Hegseth), federal criminal (US v. Jacobo-Magana, US v. Clark), prisoner habeas (Cunningham 2255), and contract/PI. Plus Chief-Judge administrative mc-dockets (EPA fee-exemption requests). This is a qualitative character sample, NOT a counted nature-of-suit distribution.