"Mr. Allen, I'm sorry that things have not been the way they are supposed to."
That statement came out of the mouth of Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui, the presiding judge in the Cole Allen proceedings. This is a man who took a train across the country to allegedly kill the president of the United States, as well as taking out as many staffers as he possibly could. He allegedly shot a Secret Service agent in the chest.
What is even more concerning than the apology is the clear political statement made by Judge Faruqui about the January 6 defendants. This is the very definition of an activist judge, but this goes much deeper than that.
Both sides are calling out judges, while few are looking at the actual facts of the cases. Are we seeing activism? In my opinion, yes, but we are also seeing a lot of sloppy work by prosecutors and agencies that few, if any, outlets are daring to report on. My job is to give you the full picture, so that is all about to change.
Have you ever heard a judge apologize to an alleged assassin? Not once, but twice? In addition to the apology above, Judge Faruqui, according to the USA Today report, also stated:
“Whatever you have been through, I apologize for the prior week.”
The judge also apologized for Allen being put in five-point restraints based on the fact that he had “no criminal history.” The man rushed into a formal dinner event packed with journalists and politicians armed to the teeth, so I think we can waive the “no criminal history” qualifier in this case.
Then came the political qualifiers, such as:
"I never heard of one Jan. 6 defendant who was put in five-point restraints or in a safe cell."
And…
“Pardons may erase convictions, but they don't erase history. They were hanging gallows outside."
Allen was reportedly put on suicide watch, which, as we have seen in the past, is fairly typical in a high-profile case such as this, regardless of the mental health examination. His attorney has requested that he be removed from solitary confinement, and Judge Faruqui was more than happy to grant the request, calling for him to be placed in medium security with windows, you know, so he can take in the sights.
He sounded as though he were addressing a man who had stolen a loaf of bread. In reality, Allen is accused of:
There were definitely some procedural screwups here, such as the denial of a bible, lawyer access through a locked cage where staff could overhear the conversations (this is a major problem for due process), and the overriding of the suicide risk assessment (again, not justifying it, but we have seen this in many high-profile cases after arrest).
These challenges are generally not fixed with an apology and a lecture about defendants in other cases. They are fixed with court orders to rectify the situation. This judge has already proven he is compromised, and I am terrified to think about how this case will proceed with a presiding judge who has found a soft spot for an alleged assassin.
I will get more into the sloppy legal work in just a bit, but imagine if Allen gets off over the due process issue for not giving him a private room with his attorney. It is just one procedural error in what I will shortly prove to be an epidemic.
Several days ago, it was reported that a Biden-appointed judge, Judge Melissa DuBose, released a migrant with deportation orders who was also wanted for murder in the Dominican Republic, reported Fox News.
When I read the headline, I was just as outraged as everyone who is reading this article, but we were not getting all the facts. This is one of those cases where procedures were not followed, and the judge was being labeled as an activist to make up for sloppy work on the part of prosecutors and DHS.
The migrant, Bryan Rafael Gomez, was being held under an authority that was meant to hold migrants who had crossed illegally at the border. Since Gomez has been detained inside the country, DuBose ruled that the statute cited by ICE in the arrest did not apply to Gomez.
The judge further ruled that Gomez was not supposed to be subject to mandatory detention, but was instead supposed to have been given a bond hearing. Due to the order issued by DuBose, Gomez cannot be re-arrested.
DHS Acting Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Lauren Bis responded:
"Bryan Rafael Gomez is a criminal illegal alien from the Dominican Republic with an international warrant for homicide. An activist judge appointed by Joe Biden released this wanted murderer back into American communities."
The statement continued:
"This is yet another example of an activist judge trying to thwart President Trump’s mandate from the American people to remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities. Under President Trump and Secretary Mullin, DHS will continue to fight for the removal of criminal illegal aliens who have no right to be in our country."
Am I outraged over the release of this individual? You better believe I am. But I am ever more outraged over the sloppy work by DHS for not using the proper authority to hold the suspect.
There is more to this, if you can believe it. ICE had told prosecutors about the murder warrant, but it did not inform the DOJ that it could reveal the warrant to the judge. Now, a properly functioning DOJ would already know that, or at least ask, but that warrant information never made it to Judge DuBose.
Point being, the judge made the ruling without the most critical piece of evidence in the case. This is an ICE and DOJ failure, not a failure on the part of the judge. I would love to rip DuBose for letting an alleged murderer go free, but not all the I’s were dotted, nor were all the T’s crossed in this case.
We saw this sloppy legal work under former Attorney General Pam Bondi, and it resulted in indictments being dismissed and cases being thrown out before they ever had a chance to be heard.
You want the truth here? This is deflection on the part of DHS, which, sadly, is still being run in the same haphazard manner it was under Noem, and that is inexcusable.
Next up is Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, who is one of the more interesting cases in this “activist” judge category.
The current political climate being what it is, everyone considered Boasberg an Obama appointee, but that is not the real truth. In fact, Boasberg was first appointed to the bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush, serving on the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. He was then elevated to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by President Barack Obama in 2011. Boasberg also received two specialty appointments (FISA and Alien Terrorist Removal Court) by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Ironically, Boasberg was serving on the FISA court when all of those bogus warrants were issued regarding the Russian collusion hoax, so just file that away for later.
Boasberg presided over the Alien Enemies Act deportation flights to El Salvador that were initiated in March 2025.
He had issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the flights to El Salvador, which was ignored by the DOJ and DHS. To that point, two planes departed after the order was given.
Boasberg initiated contempt charges, but the interesting aspect of this case is that the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Boasberg did not have jurisdiction in the original case. At the time, I wondered how a judge could initiate a contempt charge when he never had jurisdiction.
The White House called for his impeachment, with Trump calling him a “radical left lunatic,” as well as the DOJ filing a misconduct complaint against Boasberg in July 2025, reported NBC News.
This, in my opinion, is the most glaring case of judicial activism, with Boasberg’s contempt investigation being halted, but there is also a twist to that. Two of the judges on the panel that called the contempt investigation “a clear abuse of discretion" and "intrusive" were appointed by President Trump. The Biden appointee on the panel dissented, as we would expect in this day and age of politically charged jurists.
The misconduct allegations against Boasberg were also dismissed, with Judge Jeffrey Sutton finding that the DOJ offered no real evidence of misconduct by Boasberg. Sutton was appointed by President George W. Bush.
My take on this was a judge who had an ax to grind, as he had a history with this administration. Boasberg had also handled the Pete Hegseth Signal chat case and the investigation into Fed Chairman Jerome Powell.
The key point in all of this is that Boasberg took a case where he clearly did not have jurisdiction, then continued to pursue contempt charges in that case. If that is not judicial activism, I don’t know what is.
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz is another George W. Bush appointee who has been a nightmare for this administration, but solely because he is pointing out the sloppy work regarding court order violations by ICE.
In all, Schiltz claimed there were 96 violations of court orders in 74 cases since the beginning of the year, reported Courthouse News. He stated:
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence.”
After threatening to hold Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt, he backed off the charges because the detained subject had been released. Lyons then called him an activist judge.
So, are these activist judges? In two of the cases, I would say yes. But we cannot go after them unless we are truly honest about the other cases:
| Judge | Appointed By | What They Did | What the Administration Said | What Actually Happened |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faruqui (D.C.) | Obama-era magistrate | Apologized to alleged Trump assassin. Editorialized about J6 pardons and "gallows" from the bench. | Calls growing to remove him from the bench. Fox News: "shock apology." | Bible denial and lawyer access were real procedural problems. But an apology signals sympathy, not justice. The J6 "gallows" comment was a political statement, not a legal opinion. Activist? Yes. |
| DuBose (R.I.) | Biden | Released migrant wanted for murder in Dominican Republic on habeas petition. | DHS: "An activist Biden judge released this wanted murderer back into American communities." | ICE failed to share the murder warrant with prosecutors. The warrant never reached the judge. She ruled on the evidence she had. Executive failure blamed on the judiciary. Activist? No. Sloppy prosecution. |
| Boasberg (D.C.) | First appointed by George W. Bush (2002, D.C. Superior Court). Elevated by Obama (2011, U.S. District Court). Specialty appointments (FISA, Alien Terrorist Removal Court) by Chief Justice Roberts. | Pursued contempt charges against administration after SCOTUS ruled he lacked jurisdiction in the original case. | Trump: "Radical Left Lunatic." House filed impeachment resolution. DOJ filed misconduct complaint (July 2025). | Appeals court called contempt probe "a clear abuse of discretion" (2 Trump appointees vs. 1 Biden appointee). Misconduct complaint dismissed — DOJ had zero evidence (Bush-appointed Judge Sutton). Activist? Yes, but the administration's response was also an overreach. |
| Schiltz (Minn.) | George W. Bush | Documented 96 ICE violations of court orders in 74 cases in one month. Threatened contempt. | DHS: "activist judge." "We will not be deterred by activists either in the streets or on the bench." | A Bush appointee documenting 96 violations. ICE later admitted two officers made "untruthful statements" in sworn testimony. Activist? No. The administration was not following the law. |
| Two of these judges are activists. Two are not. The problem is that this administration calls all four "activists" because it is easier to blame a judge than to fix the sloppy legal work that caused the ruling. When a Bush-appointed judge documents 96 violations and the administration calls him an activist, the word has lost all meaning. Fix the procedures. Then hold the real activists accountable.
Sources: Fox News, USA Today, NY Post, DHS.gov, Washington Times, NBC News, CNN, PBS, Axios, Courthouse News, CNBC, Supreme Court opinion (24A931), Democracy Docket. |
||||
This administration knows it has to do everything by the book, so why are these cases being handled so carelessly? If these are all the great legal minds we are being told, then why can they not get procedures correct that we would expect out of someone fresh out of law school?
I have called out activism from the bench many times, as well as reprehensible behavior by judges. In fact, I called it out twice in this report alone. But now, the “activist” judge is a label slapped on every judge who rules against this administration, when, quite frankly, that is simply not the case.
In the DuBose ruling, had ICE and/or the DOJ done its job, the ruling likely would have fallen in favor of the administration. Based on the evidence the judge had, she had no choice but to set the defendant free, regardless of the despicable nature of the alleged crime. If you don’t follow the rules, you are responsible, not the judge.
This dishonesty and labeling lessen the impact when we do truly have an activist judge, such as Boasberg (my opinion), or the unprofessional comments made by Judge Faruqui.
We need better legal work to be done. And if the current players cannot do that, then Trump needs to find people who can. Otherwise, we are going to continue to see criminals walk free under the guise of activism when, far too many times, it is the inability of administration officials to properly execute their duties.
If this administration can rectify this problem, then we can finally hold the true activist judges accountable. Until then, Democrats and the media will consider that phrase nothing more than meaningless rhetoric.
