Trump wants investigation of how deportation judge was assigned Signal case, says odds 'impossible'

President Trump on Thursday called for an investigation into how U.S. District Judge James Boasberg landed four high-profile cases against his administration, saying the odds of him having so many cases is “statistically impossible.”

Judge Boasberg, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, will preside over a lawsuit against five Cabinet members over the use of Signal to coordinate military strikes in Yemen. The suit was filed by American Oversight, a government accountability watchdog. It alleges the use of Signal runs afoul of the federal law that governs the preservation of records and asks the court to order the Cabinet members to preserve the messages.

Earlier this month, Judge Boasberg imposed a temporary restraining order blocking the deportation of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The administration is appealing his ruling, but the decision prompted the White House to publicly attack him and call for his impeachment.

Judge Boasberg is also overseeing a case filed by the Project on Government Oversight alleging that the Department of Government Efficiency is violating federal law by classifying its records as “presidential records,” making them immune to the Freedom of Information Act.

Beyond those, he’s presiding over a case about the administration’s aim to close diversity, equity and inclusion offices in the federal government.

In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump added that Judge Boasberg overseeing four cases is “disgraceful.”

“Boasberg, who is the Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, seems to be grabbing the ’Trump Cases’ all to himself, even though it is not supposed to happen that way. Is there such a thing as the ’wheel,’ where the Judges are chosen fairly, and at random? The good news is that it probably doesn’t matter because it is virtually impossible for me to get an honest ruling in D.C.,” Mr. Trump wrote. “Our Nation’s Courts are broken with New York and D.C. being the most preeminent of all in their Corruption and Radicalism. There must be an immediate investigation into this Rigged System, before it is too late!”

A spokesperson for the U.S. District Court in Washington didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Typically, judges are chosen randomly out of 20 possible candidates through the court’s assignment process.

Judge Boasberg, however, lags behind his colleagues in overseeing the number of cases filed against the Trump administration. District Judge Jia Cobb has at least 10 cases, three other judges have six each, two have five each and several judges have four.

Judge Boasberg does have a long history of presiding over political cases involving Mr. Trump and has issued rulings for and against the president.

In 2017, for example, Judge Boasberg denied a lawsuit seeking to force the IRS to release Mr. Trump’s tax returns. He later ordered Vice President Mike Pence to testify before a grand jury about his contacts with Mr. Trump in the days leading up to Jan. 6, 2021.

American Oversight’s lawsuit comes after the Signal group chat was revealed by The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, who said he was inadvertently added to the discussion. Top administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard were named as defendants in the lawsuit.

According to the suit, emergency relief is needed “to prevent the unlawful destruction of federal records and to compel Defendants to fulfill their legal obligations to preserve and recover federal records created through unauthorized use of Signal for sensitive national security decision-making.”

The assignment of Judge Boasberg to the case came just days after Mr. Trump criticized him as a “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge” in a social media post, arguing the American people elected him, not the judge, to curb illegal immigration.

Mr. Trump’s statement raised concern in the legal community and prompted Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to issue a rare statement saying, “Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”

• Stephen Dinan contributed to this story.