Judge Bombshell in Jack Smith Subpoena

A court official claims that former Special Counsel Jack Smith didn’t notify a judge that his signed Arctic Frost gag orders were aimed at Republican Members of Congress. Is today’s bombshell an attempt at a Deep State cover-up? Or is it just shining a spotlight on a major flaw in how the DOJ operated in the past?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Chuck Grassley (IA) called this latest revelation “deeply troubling.”

As reported by Fox News:

A top federal court official defended Judge James Boasberg’s gag orders that hid subpoenas related to the FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation, saying this week that the chief judge in Washington would likely have been unaware that the subpoenas’ intended targets were members of Congress.

The administrative office for the federal courts indicated that the chief judge in D.C. routinely blindly signed gag orders when the Department of Justice requested them, including during Arctic Frost, the investigation that led to former special counsel Jack Smith bringing election charges against President Donald Trump.

The administrative office’s director, Robert Conrad Jr., provided the explanation on behalf of Boasberg to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, in a letter first obtained by Fox News Digital.

The letter came in response to Grassley, Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., and Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, demanding an explanation from Boasberg about why he authorized the one-year gag orders, which barred phone companies from telling Republican Congress members that their records were subpoenaed by Smith in 2023.

Conrad said he could not address those specific subpoenas and gag orders, in part because some of the material was sealed, but that he could help the lawmakers “understand relevant practices” in place during Arctic Frost.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts just pulled back the curtain a bit, and revealed something astonishing . . . and concerning. Due to the DOJ process at that time, Judge James Boasberg, who approved the nondisclosure orders, may not have known he was authorizing secret surveillance on Members of Congress.

As the court’s letter stated: “DOJ policy in effect at the time did not require the NDOs filed with the courts to reference . . . the fact that they related to requests for records of Members of Congress or congressional staffers.”

The DOJ never included names – it only submitted phone numbers and a boilerplate request not to tell the owners. That’s it. No subpoena attached. No explanation of why secrecy was necessary. Just a list of numbers and an expectation that the courts would simply approve it, no questions asked. And according to the court’s own letter, that’s exactly how it usually happened.

Of course, we all understand there aresituations where the government must keep investigations quiet: national security threats, terrorism, drug trafficking, cases where evidence or lives could be jeopardized. Judges have that authority for a reason. But what we learned here is that the default posture, at least before new rules were put in place in 2024, was essentially automatic approval. The DOJ would file these nondisclosure requests under seal, the courts would docket them, and no one checked who was being targeted.

That’s not oversight. That’s not the careful balance of powers. That’s just old-fashioned bureaucratic rubber-stamping.

And here’s the really disturbing part: If this is how easily the DOJ can obtain the private records of sitting U.S. Senators, what does that mean for everyone else?

Not to mention it raises real constitutional issues, not just about the separation of powers, but the reality that secret government actions should require more scrutiny, not less. And while the rules were changed last year so Members of Congress can’t be gagged this way without explicit judicial awareness, it still leaves the rest of the country operating under a system of trust that may not be justified. Regardless, the DOJ process desperately needs reform, and people need to be held accountable.

Later in the show we shifted our attention to Israel, when the head of our Jerusalem office, ACLJ Senior Counsel Jeff Ballabon, joined us live via phone from the Lebanon border. As America’s news cycle drifts elsewhere, he reminded us that the threats Israel faces are very real and ongoing, including rockets still flying, tunnels still being discovered, and Hezbollah still rebuilding with Iranian support. These aren’t abstract discussions; they’re live-fire situations affecting real people being reported by our own boots on the ground.

Today’s Sekulow broadcast included more analysis of whether Jack Smith tried to conceal who was really being targeted in Arctic Frost. We also discussed the results of last night’s congressional special election in Tennessee. And we were joined by U.S. Special Presidential Envoy Ric Grenell to discuss the Left’s campaign to attack Trump Cabinet appointees, such as FBI Director Kash Patel and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.

Watch the full broadcast below: