Lawyers Take Stand Against Donald Trump's Treatment Of Federal Judge

At least their dissent is noted.

Black woman writing letterA letter with the signatures of 145 attorneys who maintain federal practices or have served as federal law clerks has been sent to Acting Attorney General Dana Boente and Acting Solicitor General Noel Francisco, expressing the signatories’ concern over President Trump’s tweetantrum over James L. Robart.

For those who haven’t been following current events, Judge Robart is a district court judge, appointed by George W. Bush (not that it should matter, but still, worth noting), who instituted a temporary stay blocking Trump’s executive order on immigration, known as a travel ban. The Donald responded not like a dignified world leader, but like a 14-year-old whose parents haven’t quite yet taken away Twitter.

And now lawyers have come out against the tweets. The letter’s author, Laura W. Brill, an attorney and former U.S. Supreme Court law clerk, said:

Lawyers across the political spectrum believe that the President’s personal attacks on individual judges and on the judicial branch are improper and destructive. Because judges face ethical constraints in their ability to respond directly, the letter calls on the President to retract and end such personal attacks.

The letter notes the importance of the American system of checks and balances, and the impropriety of the comments, particularly given Trump’s role as a party to the suit:

Sponsored

An independent federal judiciary, in which judges have the power to decide cases and controversies that come before them and to interpret and apply the law in their best judgment, is a hallmark of our American constitutional structure. It is crucial to our system of checks and balances and furthers the interests of democracy.

We are writing to express our deep concern regarding President Donald Trump’s public criticism of Judge James L. Robart in connection with a matter pending before Judge Robart, State of Washington et al. v. Trump, et al., (W.D. Wash., Case No. C17-0141JLR ), in which the President, in his official capacity, is a party.

Given the fact that not even close advisors can pry Twitter out of our president’s hands, the letter is unlikely to have much of an impact, but at least their dissent is noted.

Read the full letter on the next page.


headshotKathryn Rubino is an editor at Above the Law. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter (@Kathryn1).

Sponsored