Conspiracy Theories Target Judge Boasberg’s Oath of Office, Legal Experts Debunk Claims
Washington D.C. – A screenshot circulating on social media platform X from April 1, 2025, has reignited unfounded allegations surrounding the oath of office of Chief Judge Beryl A. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The post, part of a broader campaign of conspiracy theories targeting multiple U.S. judges, questions the validity of Boasberg’s oath based on the capitalization of "so help me God" in a 2011 document. These claims, first raised by defendant William Giustino during his 2023 criminal trial appeal, have been thoroughly debunked by legal scholars who dismiss them as frivolous and lacking any legal merit. Giustino, known for disseminating conspiratorial content, has repeatedly attempted to use this argument to invalidate rulings against him.
The controversy stems from Giustino’s interpretation of the U.S. Code for oaths of justices and judges. He contends that the specific capitalization in Boasberg’s 2011 oath renders it invalid, consequently nullifying any rulings made by the judge. Giustino obtained a copy of the 2011 oath through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and submitted it as part of his appeal. Agence France-Presse (AFP) also filed a FOIA request for the document, but a response from the court is still pending. Although Judge Boasberg permitted the document’s inclusion in the case file, the court has not acknowledged the validity of Giustino’s claim. During a June 26, 2023 hearing, Judge Boasberg firmly rejected Giustino’s argument, stating unequivocally that he would neither recuse himself nor vacate the plea based on a "fabricated issue" concerning the oath.
Legal experts have weighed in on the matter, unanimously dismissing Giustino’s claims as baseless. Yale University legal scholar Bruce Ackerman characterizes the challenges to Judge Boasberg’s oath as “without merit,” suggesting they serve as a distraction from legitimate legal proceedings. Ackerman further emphasizes that the 2011 document is neither Judge Boasberg’s first nor most recent federal oath of office. This highlights the questionable nature of Giustino’s focus on this specific document while ignoring Boasberg’s other oaths. Judge Boasberg has taken multiple oaths throughout his judicial career, beginning with his 2002 appointment as an associate judge in the District of Columbia’s Superior Court by President George W. Bush.
Judge Boasberg’s distinguished legal career includes his appointment to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in 2011 by President Barack Obama, confirmed by a unanimous vote in the Senate. Further solidifying his legitimacy, he was appointed Chief Judge in 2023, an appointment confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate. This bipartisan support for his judicial appointments underscores the consensus regarding his qualifications and the frivolous nature of the challenges to his oath. These repeated confirmations by both Democratic and Republican-led Senates serve as a testament to his esteemed standing within the legal community.
William Buzbee, a Georgetown University law professor, echoes Ackerman’s assessment, characterizing the claim as "frivolous." He points to Judge Boasberg’s long and respected career, emphasizing the absence of any previous questions regarding the validity of his appointments. The consensus among legal experts suggests that Giustino’s arguments are not rooted in genuine legal concerns but rather in a desire to disrupt judicial proceedings and spread misinformation. This echoes the broader trend of unfounded accusations against public figures, often amplified through social media platforms.
This incident underscores the rising tide of misinformation and conspiracy theories targeting public officials and institutions. The rapid spread of such unsubstantiated claims through social media poses a significant challenge to the integrity of the judicial system and democratic processes. The debunking of these theories by legal scholars and the clear record of Judge Boasberg’s legitimate appointments serve as a vital counterpoint to these misleading narratives. Continued vigilance and fact-checking are essential to combat the proliferation of disinformation and maintain public trust in the judicial process. It is crucial for media outlets and individuals to critically evaluate information shared online and consult credible sources to discern fact from fiction. The case of Judge Boasberg serves as a clear reminder of the importance of upholding factual accuracy in the face of unfounded allegations amplified by the digital age.
