Missouri Senator Eric Schmitt has introduced the BOASBERG Act to stop what he calls rogue judges from steering politically sensitive cases, proposing mandatory random assignment, transparency, and penalties for manipulation, with particular attention on Judge Jeb Boasberg and his repeated appearance in high-profile cases during President Donald Trump’s second term.

Rogue Judge Finally Gets an Act Named After Him – What It Does Is Hilarious

“Rogue judges” have been a major impediment to President Donald Trump’s agenda throughout his second term, according to critics who see repeated, selective judicial involvement as a pattern rather than coincidence. The BOASBERG Act aims to fix that pattern by enforcing randomized case assignment and adding transparency to court procedures.

Judge Jeb Boasberg is singled out by proponents as a repeat example of an activist jurist who keeps showing up in the most consequential cases. Those critics point to his role in FISA matters and the Carter Page surveillance warrants, asserting a need for greater safeguards around who gets assigned politically charged litigation.

Boasberg also drew attention during many January 6 cases and more recently in immigration disputes, where his assignments raised eyebrows about case selection and emergency routing. These recurring appearances, real or perceived, have fueled the demand for statutory checks on how judges end up handling certain matters.

Senator Schmitt calls his bill the BOASBERG Act, which stands for the Blocking Overt Attempts at Shopping By Enforcing Randomization Guidelines Act, a name chosen for effect and focus. The proposal is designed to eliminate discretionary maneuvers that can let chief judges or clerical channels steer cases toward a preferred judge.

The legislation would require courts to adopt authentic randomization systems for both district and appellate dockets, removing human gatekeeping from initial assignments. It also mandates public disclosure of the assignment process so outside observers can verify the randomness claim and recreate assignment steps if needed.

The BOASBERG Act further proposes penalties for officials who manipulate assignments and a mechanism to reshuffle a case when the Supreme Court intervenes to correct an error tied to assignment or judicial behavior. Courts would have 120 days after enactment to put these procedures in place, an aggressive timeline supporters say is necessary.

As Senator Schmitt put it on X: “One year ago, the DOJ filed its judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Boasberg. Today, I’m filing the BOASBERG Act to permanently block rogue judges from hijacking cases. Impeach Judge Boasberg. Pass the BOASBERG Act.” This direct call frames the bill as both reform and rebuke.

Schmitt summarized three main goals of the legislation in public statements, aiming at assignment, transparency, and reassignment when higher courts overturn decisions. The bill’s intended effect is to create procedural guardrails that prevent a single judge from repeatedly deciding politically volatile matters without clear assignment rules.

1. Randomize case assignments for federal district and appeals courts.

2. Implement transparency measures to verify randomized assignments are actually being followed.

3. Reassign a case away from a judge if SCOTUS overrules him in that case.

https://x.com/SenEricSchmitt/status/2082198790350454784

Supporters argue these steps are modest and pragmatic, short of more drastic measures like broad defunding or widespread impeachment of judges. They say the BOASBERG Act simply restores predictable, fair procedures so litigants and the public can trust the process, not just outcomes.

Critics of these reforms warn about unintended consequences, such as over-formalizing assignments or creating new bureaucratic hurdles that slow urgent litigation, but backers counter that transparency and randomized systems can be implemented efficiently. The core promise is to stop apparent case-shopping and to make any deviations visible and punishable.

Whether the BOASBERG Act becomes law will depend on congressional appetite for procedural judicial reforms and how lawmakers weigh claims of biased assignment against institutional independence. Proponents believe a relatively narrow statute focused on assignment mechanics offers a politically viable path that addresses a real grievance.

At the heart of the debate is a balance between preventing manipulation and preserving judicial autonomy, with advocates insisting that enforced randomness and public disclosure do not compromise judges’ independence. Instead, they see those measures as basic process protections that strengthen the judiciary’s legitimacy in contentious political fights.