Judgment, Institutions, and the Future of Law: A Conversation with Chief Judge James E. Boasberg

Judge James Boasberg is the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. He was originally appointed to the District Court in 2011. Appointed by Chief Justice John Roberts to a seven-year term on the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court beginning in 2014, Judge Boasberg also served as the Court’s Presiding Judge from 2020 to 2021. He is the current President of the Edward Bennett Williams Inn of Court and is a member of the Yale University Council. Judge Boasberg’s three decades of experience in civil and white-collar litigation and extraordinary dedication to public service as a federal prosecutor and a federal judge have given him a unique vantage point on the evolving relationship between law, institutions, and public trust. This interview illustrates his thoughtfulness, humility, and deep belief in the legal profession as a guardian of the rule of law - even amid rapid technological, institutional, and cultural change.

This interview was conducted in the fall of 2025. It has been edited for length and clarity.

I. Early Influences, Formation, and the Path to Law

Vidya Ambati (VA): What experiences in your life drew you to law, and what habits or principles have proven most essential in your journey?

Judge James E. Boasberg (JJB): I was not the most imaginative college student. My father was a lawyer, and I don’t think I could even spell “chemistry.” So, my potential career options I thought were somewhat limited, and they were confined to being an academic, going into journalism, or the law. I spent a year at Oxford doing a Master’s and realized that academia was a little too lonely of a pursuit for me. So, I largely defaulted into going to law school.

VA: You played college basketball and, before starting law school, you coached high school basketball, long before gap years were fashionable. How did that come to be, and what lessons from those experiences did you bring to the bench?

JJB: I took two years between college and law school because I was at Oxford for a year, and then I taught high school and coached basketball for a year. So, I strongly urge students, unless they have an unusual family financial situation, to take time off between college and law school. It helps them grow up, it helps them put school into perspective, and it helps them get a sense of what they might want to do with a law degree. I thought for me, two years was just right. I was ready to go back to law school at that point, but I had seen a little bit more of the world, and I had thought more about the kinds of careers I would like to pursue.

II. Interpretation, Judicial Philosophy, and the Role of Lawyers

VA: How would you describe your approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation (whether textual, purposive, historical, pragmatic, or some combination)? And how has your approach evolved from your early years on the bench to now as Chief Judge?

JJB: I don’t think I would say that my approach has evolved enormously. I think judges have a duty to consider a range of issues when engaging in interpretation, which includes text, intent, purpose, result, context, and precedent. I think that all of these are important tools, and some may be more important in certain cases than others. However, I think it’s too cabining to ascribe one specific approach that one would use in every case.

VA: Do you think there are areas of the law where a pragmatic approach is necessary to achieve justice, even if it diverges from a strictly textual reading?

JJB: I think one certainly has to consider the results and consequences. I know Justice Stephen Breyer is fond of his example of a French railway that requires a passenger to pay half fare for every animal he brings on board. So, should one carrying a bucket of snails pay half fare for each one? The text of the regulation would require this if you consider snails as animals. And so, he shows, I think, in his writings, how judges have to consider consequences or absurd results.

VA: I think it’s safe to say you’re a Shakespeare aficionado, so much as you even quoted the bard from Henry V in one of your rulings. In Henry VI, there’s a famous, if often-misunderstood quote, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,” in which Shakespeare is not excoriating lawyers but rather holding them up as a bulwark against injustice. What are your thoughts about the importance of independent lawyers in maintaining the impartial administration of justice?

JJB: You’re exactly right. That’s frequently quoted out of context because the speaker is a villain in the piece. And by stating that, as you point out, Shakespeare is not endorsing it but rather condemning it. Lawyers are not merely participants in their own interests, but they are truly officers of the court, and they take an oath when they join the bar of a particular court or a particular state, to uphold those virtues that go into a justice system that attempts to be fair to all people. In addition, I think that the law is not merely a trade, as are certain ones like being a shoemaker or a tailor, but rather it is a profession that has standards that insure to the public’s benefit as well as to the benefit of individual lawyers themselves.

III. Institutions, Norms, and the Balance of Power

VA: I imagine thirty years in D.C. have given you a unique vantage point on the durability or fragility of our institutions. What gives you the most confidence that the judiciary will remain the guardian of the rule of law?

JJB: I think there are a lot of judges whom I know in our court, and in courts around the country, who take their oath seriously and believe they have an important role in upholding the role of law. I’m optimistic that they will continue to do so.

VA: Some people claim that stare decisis is no longer as constraining as it once was. Do you think the doctrine’s authority has weakened? How do you personally navigate respect for precedent against the need to correct what might be seen as past judicial error?

JJB: I think that everybody likes their own precedent, or to put it another way, everybody likes precedent that favors them. So, the problem with people who claim that the Supreme Court should always follow precedent is that Plessy v. Ferguson would never be overruled. On the other hand, people who say you should not respect precedent at all would open every case as a free-for-all, depending on if you could get enough votes. So, I think the answer is a healthy respect for precedent, but a realization that it can’t bind the court in every case.

VA: I want to ask you about judicial finality. It’s not enshrined in the Constitution, but more of a norm or a principle. How does this concept fare when one branch asserts power aggressively or cedes power too readily? After all, the judiciary doesn’t have armies like the executive or appropriations like the legislature.

JJB: It is true that it is often said that we have no sword nor purse to uphold our edicts, and I think that the framers very wisely set out a system of checks and balances where each branch could check another. But there are also norms that aren’t enshrined in law, and if one branch decides to break those norms or act contrary to those norms, another branch may have difficulty reasserting its authority. But I think there is a continual pull and tug in among the branches.

IV. Comparative Law, Suo Moto Powers, and Judicial Restraint

VA: Some courts abroad, such as those in India and South Africa, take up issues suo moto, or on their own initiative, in the interest of justice. Do you see any role for that kind of self-starting judicial power within the American constitutional framework?

JJB: That’s very interesting. The problem with such an approach is that it really empowers judges to be initiating actors in any sphere they dislike. I don’t think there’s a problem, currently, with a lack of litigants bringing cases on important issues to courts. The Constitution requires courts to only consider cases or controversies, and that has been interpreted to mean that plaintiffs must have standing to bring any case to a court. So, courts not only have to wait for a plaintiff, but they have to wait for a plaintiff with standing. And I think it would be quite a shock to the system if courts took this into practice, as courts could reach out and grab anything. And would this encompass just the Supreme Court? Or could it be any court? Any federal court? Any state court? I think you would really have havoc, particularly if different courts reached out for the same case.

VA: Are there particular historical or structural reasons why American courts have been more hesitant than some of their counterparts abroad to draw on comparative law?

JJB: I think that’s something that people do. Particularly, I know that in some of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding juveniles and solitary confinement as cruel and unusual punishment, life sentences for cases other than murder, and life sentences for juveniles, that the Supreme Court has looked at the jurisprudence of other countries to see what would constitute cruel and unusual. So, I think that does happen.

V. Artificial Intelligence, Technology, and the Future of Legal Practice

VA: There seems to be an epidemic of lawyers misusing A.I., and now the contagion seems to have spread to some on the bench as well. How do you see the system responding to the rapidly changing digital environment?

JJB: I think we cannot stick our heads in the sand and pretend that A.I. is a fad that will go away. I think that A.I. will be used by courts and litigants in many varied ways over the coming years. And so, to ban litigants from using it, I think, is probably short sighted. I think that, particularly for pro se litigants or for small law firms, A.I. would be a benefit. As for law firms, lawyers have to make sure to check their work so they can’t submit briefs they haven’t been very carefully cite-checked. And that’s, unfortunately, what’s happened in a number of cases around the country, and I fully expect it to continue to happen.

VA: It has been said that A.I. threatens the job market for new lawyers. So, what thoughts or advice do you have for the next generation of lawyers?

JJB: I don’t really have a sense of what jobs A.I. will, or won’t, take away. Certainly, people whose jobs are solely document review might be in trouble because I would think that A.I. would be able to do that pretty successfully. But I think that the judgment lawyers supply across many different fields is not in danger of going away, which makes lawyers still valuable as people.

VA: Do you think there will be A.I. Judges in the future?

JJB: Well, there’s certainly fields that you might put A.I. to work in. For example, in Social Security appeals, workers’ compensation appeals, or maybe even immigration appeals, ones where you have set criteria that might more easily be handled by A.I., but I don’t know enough to say for sure.

VA: You have been in private practice, a prosecutor, and a federal judge with a wide ambit. What lessons would you impart to the next generation of lawyers?

JJB: I tell people frequently that it’s very important to have a passion for the mission of your organization, be that public interest, or government, or private, that you have to go to work every day excited about the mission that you are there to fulfill. If you are just going to work for a paycheck, or because you have friends who work there, this will not carry you through many years. You need to have a strong belief in what you are doing, and a passion for the mission is critical to long term career satisfaction.

VA: Thank you so much for this discussion. It’s been a pleasure to speak to you.

Conclusion

Judge Boasberg’s reflections are those of a humble, practical, and institutionally dedicated jurist. Whether the topic is statutory interpretation, the fragility of norms, or the promise and perils of AI, he echoes the same theme: in the end, the law is about people, their judgment, their ethics, and their passion for the mission of justice. His reflections are both reassuring and a call to action for the next generation of lawyers, who will inherit a transformed legal landscape ushered in by technological change but still tethered to the enduring principles that he articulates.