‘MCDONALD’S JUSTICE’: Ted Cruz Accuses DC Judge Boasberg of Rubber-Stamping ‘Illegal’ DOJ Subpoenas

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The halls of the Senate echoed with the rhetoric of constitutional crisis on Tuesday as Senator Ted Cruz leveled some of the most severe accusations against a federal judge in recent memory. Armed with a physical copy of a signed court order, Cruz argued that the D.C. legal establishment has effectively merged with the executive branch to target political opponents.

At the heart of the firestorm is Judge James Boasberg, the Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.¹ Cruz alleges that Boasberg signed off on ex parte orders that allowed Special Counsel Jack Smith to subpoena the phone records of Republican senators and representatives without their knowledge—a move Cruz insists is a direct violation of federal law.

.

.

.

The ‘Zero Basis’ Interrogation

The hearing turned explosive when Cruz questioned Professor Luther regarding the fundamental duties of a federal judge. The Senator’s line of questioning sought to establish a “gross dereliction of duty” on the part of the D.C. bench.

“Is it consistent with a judge’s oath of office to sign an order for which there is zero basis in law and zero basis in fact?” Cruz asked.

When the witness replied with a firm “Absolutely not,” Cruz held up a document bearing Boasberg’s signature. He alleged that the judge ordered phone companies to withhold information from members of the Senate and House regarding the subpoenaing of their records.

Cruz cited a specific 2004 federal statute that explicitly makes it illegal for a phone company to disclose a senator’s phone records to the government without notifying the senator in question. By signing a non-disclosure order, Cruz argued, Boasberg didn’t just interpret the law—he willfully ignored it.

The Secret NDOs: A Legal Trap?

The technical debate centered on Non-Disclosure Orders (NDOs). These are often used in criminal investigations to prevent targets from destroying evidence. However, Cruz pointed out the absurdity of applying this logic to high-ranking constitutional officers without any specific evidence of criminality.

Cruz read from Boasberg’s order, which claimed there were “reasonable grounds to believe” that notifying senators would result in the “destruction of or tampering with evidence, intimidation of potential witnesses, and serious jeopardy to the investigation.”

Cruz’s rebuttal was sharp: “Is there any conceivable basis for Judge Boasberg signing that, particularly given Jack Smith’s testimony now that Judge Boasberg had no idea whose phone records he was signing off on?”

The implication was clear: the judge allegedly signed a “blank check” for surveillance without knowing—or caring—who the targets were, as long as the request came from the Department of Justice.

‘Welcome to the Fast Food Counter’

In what is already becoming a viral soundbite, Cruz compared Judge Boasberg’s courtroom to a fast-food franchise serving the Biden-Harris administration’s legal team.

“Welcome to the fast food counter at McDonald’s. Whatever you want, all the fries you want, I will sign. Ordered, ordered, ordered,” Cruz mocked. “That is perfectly fine if you are the chairman of the DNC… Judges are expected not to be partisan hacks.”

Cruz argued that while the judge may not have known the specific names, he knew the political identity of the investigation. By knowing that Jack Smith was targeting “over 400 Republicans,” Cruz asserted that the judge’s signature was an act of political animus—an assumption that “every Republican on planet Earth… is a criminal.”

The Pattern of ‘Rogue’ Law Enforcement

To bolster his argument that this was not an isolated incident, Cruz connected the Boasberg NDOs to the tenure of Attorney General Merrick Garland. He pointed to the DOJ’s refusal to prosecute protesters who demonstrated outside the homes of Supreme Court justices in 2022, despite 18 U.S.C. Section 1507, which prohibits picketing with the intent to influence a judge.

Cruz labeled Garland a “rogue partisan” and argued that the DOJ only enforces the law when it aligns with their political objectives. The “hypocrisy,” according to Cruz, is that the same legal system that protects “violent protesters” is the one secretly harvesting the private communications of Republican lawmakers.

Key Takeaways from the Senate Clash

Feature
Ted Cruz’s Allegation
Legal/Procedural Context

Statutory Violation
Violation of 2004 Congress notification law.
Judges generally have wide latitude on NDOs, but “Speech or Debate” clause protections are often invoked for Senators.

Judicial Oversight
“Zero basis in fact”; Judge didn’t know the targets.
Ex parte hearings (only one side present) rely heavily on the prosecutor’s honesty.

Remedy
“No conceivable universe” for appeal.
Because the orders were secret, targets could not challenge them until after the records were seized.

Political Bias
Judge acted as a “partisan hack” for Jack Smith.
Jack Smith’s investigation into Jan 6th and classified documents remains the most polarized legal battle in D.C.

The Defense: ‘Gaps in Federal Law’

Not everyone on the committee agreed with Cruz’s characterization. Professor Vladic suggested that the remedy for an erroneous judicial decision is an appeal. He noted that in some cases, service providers like Verizon actually declined to comply with the NDOs, indicating that there was some friction in the process.

However, Vladic admitted that there are “lots of gaps in federal law” when it comes to surveillance targets being unable to defend themselves against secret orders. This admission only fueled Cruz’s fire, as he argued that constitutional officers should never be subjected to “gaps” that allow for the circumventing of statutory protections.

The Road Ahead: Judicial Accountability

As the hearing concluded, the fallout began to spread across social media. Supporters of Senator Cruz are calling for an investigation into Judge Boasberg’s conduct, while critics of the Texas Senator argue he is merely trying to intimidate the judiciary and shield himself from legitimate investigations.

One thing is certain: the relationship between the Republican wing of the Senate and the D.C. District Court has reached a breaking point. With the 2026 election cycle looming, the narrative of “weaponized justice” is no longer just a campaign slogan—it is a formal charge being read into the Congressional Record.