James E. Boasberg
How Judge Boasberg rules, drawn from 47 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
About Judge Boasberg
James Emanuel Boasberg is a judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Appointed by President Barack Obama, Judge Boasberg received a commission on March 17, 2011.
Judge Boasberg's practices and standing orders
The court's website lists no individual practices or standing orders of Judge Boasberg's own (checked October 8, 2026), so the court's local rules and general orders are the place to look (court page ↗).
Standing orders for every case in this court
Orders the court applies to all of its cases, whichever judge has them, as published on the court's website (checked October 8, 2026).
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 Khazaei v. Blinken, he dismissed visa-delay claims involving waits of seven to twelve months and an unsupported allegation of a broader pattern of disparate treatment.
“For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”
In Diegelmann’s sanctions challenge, he applied the ordinary-meaning rule to interpret an undefined term.
“unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning”
In a challenge to 340B program certifications, the court treated the statute’s requirement of funding through a state or local government as dispositive when clinics received the funds through a private intermediary.
“The Court thus concludes that any funding the clinics received was through Sagebrush, not a state or local government, rendering them statutorily ineligible for 340B certification as covered entities.”
Procedural preferences
In Phillips’s injunction case, he placed on the plaintiff the burden to show the challenged policy still existed and caused a prospective injury.
“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.”
In the same Phillips litigation, he rejected a theory introduced only in summary-judgment briefing because it was absent from the complaint.
“As she cannot amend her Complaint through summary-judgment briefing, Phillips's Motion does not succeed.”
In Wine, the court reopened a dismissed case after learning that the incarcerated plaintiff had not received its prior orders, then gave him a new deadline to establish service.
“MINUTE ORDER: As Plaintiff was incarcerated and never received notice of the Courts prior Orders, it now ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiff's 8 Motion to Vacate is GRANTED; 2) The Court's dismissal of the case is VACATED; and 3) Plaintiff shall file proof of service on the Government by February 2, 2024, or the case will be dismissed per Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 1/12/2024. Counsel have been notified by first class mail.(znbn)”
In Campaign Legal Center, the court stayed a private action because a related appeal could shape jurisdiction and the governing legal rule, while continued discovery risked irreversible disclosure.
“Pausing this action now will preserve judicial resources and avoid the preventable harm of irreversible disclosure of records that may be obviated on appeal.”
In Dixon Law v. Powell, Judge Boasberg declined to vacate an arbitration award where an arbitrator had disclosed her professional acquaintance with a party’s expert and later joined the same amicus brief. He found those circumstances insufficient to establish evident partiality on the record before him.
“Even if Judge Feeney had not made such detailed disclosures, her relationship with Judge Markell — including their joining the same amicus brief — would not warrant vacatur for evident partiality.”
In Wang v. New Mighty U.S. Trust, he reconsidered an interlocutory dismissal ruling and removed the original plaintiffs from the conversion count, while leaving the remaining claims intact.
“The Motion will accordingly be granted in part and denied in part.”
Cautions
In Diegelmann v. Yellen, he upheld the challenged OFAC designations on the evidence before him, including a classified record reviewed in camera, and noted that administrative reconsideration remained available.
“As a result, the Government’s decision is not arbitrary and capricious, and the Court will grant summary judgment to Defendants on Count II.”
In Lewis, Boasberg declined the government’s request to dismiss an employment complaint with prejudice after finding that the pleaded defects did not meet the circuit’s high standard; it was the plaintiff’s first complaint with counsel.
“Dismissals with prejudice are strongly disfavored in this Circuit.”
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.”
“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.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 40 days (N = 37).
The latest eight-case sample includes employment, immigration, campaign-finance, civil-rights, and motor-vehicle matters. Six records report termination dates and two do not. Several case classifications are incomplete, and one terminated case was consolidated, so no caseload percentages or case-duration estimate are inferred.
Pending matters in the official report
Reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts under the Civil Justice Reform Act, as of March 31, 2026.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 14 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Mar 2026 | 0 | 14 |
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 15 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 13 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 14 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 15 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 11 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 12 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 12 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 11 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 6 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 9 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 5 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
How long civil cases take in this court
For the whole of United States District Court for the District of Columbia, not for Judge Boasberg: median time from filing to disposition of the civil cases the court closed in the 12 months ending September 30, 2025, as reported by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
| Cases | Median time | |
|---|---|---|
| All civil cases closed | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Closed with no court action | 876 | 5.4 months |
| Closed before pretrial | 2,449 | 8.8 months |
| Closed during or after pretrial | 13 | 53.2 months |
| Closed during trial | 9 | not reported |
| 12 months ending | Cases closed | Median time |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 3,347 | 7.7 months |
| Sep 2024 | 3,290 | 6.2 months |
| Sep 2023 | 3,288 | 4.7 months |
| Sep 2022 | 3,044 | 5.6 months |
| Sep 2021 | 3,408 | 4.8 months |
| Sep 2020 | 2,947 | 5.8 months |
| Sep 2019 | 2,963 | 5.1 months |
The table leaves out prisoner petitions, land condemnations, deportation reviews, recovery of overpayments and enforcement of judgments, and reports no median for fewer than 10 cases. A district that closed a large multidistrict litigation in the period shows very large counts and long medians for that year. Source: Table C-5, U.S. District Courts (spreadsheet).
Draft for Judge Boasberg with the record in hand
Ezel grounds your drafting and research in this profile: what has persuaded Judge Boasberg, and what has not, cited to the signed orders.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Grounded in Judge Boasberg's own signed orders
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace