Latest news with #OfficeofDisciplinaryCounsel
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ed Martin's earlier praise for a Nazi sympathizer and Jan. 6 rioter draws fresh scrutiny
Though it hardly seemed possible for Ed Martin's record to become even more controversial, the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., suffered yet another setback two weeks ago: The Washington Post reported that the hyperpartisan Trump loyalist and former 'Stop the Steal' organizer appeared more than 150 times on media outlets run by the Russian government — a detail he initially failed to disclose to the Senate panel considering his nomination — where he offered commentary aligned with Kremlin talking points. Two days prior, a group of former Jan. 6 prosecutors and conservative attorneys, pointing to Martin's ridiculous antics, asked the Office of Disciplinary Counsel at the U.S. District Court of Appeals to investigate Martin, arguing that Trump's right-wing nominee — who has no prosecutorial experience — has a 'fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor.' Common sense might suggest that the Republican lawyer would scale back his partisan and political behavior, if for no other reason than to improve his confirmation odds, but Martin has instead put his foot on the gas, adding Wikipedia and prominent medical journals to his increasingly bizarre list of targets. But perhaps the most important development of all are recent allegations about Martin's support for a man NBC News has described as a 'Nazi sympathizer' and 'Jan. 6 rioter.' Late last week, ProPublica published a stunning report on Martin's record of ghostwriting online attacks against a judge overseeing a case he was involved in. The ethics of such conduct were obviously suspect, but the same article also noted Martin's work on behalf of Jan. 6 criminal defendants: Last summer, Martin gave an award to a convicted Jan. 6 rioter named Timothy Hale-Cusanelli. According to court records, Hale-Cusanelli held 'long-standing white supremacist and Nazi beliefs,' wore a 'Hitler mustache' and allegedly told his co-workers that 'Hitler should have finished the job.' ... After hugging and thanking Hale-Cusanelli at the ceremony, Martin told the audience that one of his goals was 'to make sure that the world — and especially America — hears more from Tim Hale, because he's extraordinary.' The fact that Martin publicly praised a Nazi sympathizer seems like the sort of thing that might be a problem for his nomination to take over one of the nation's largest prosecutorial offices. Last week, the Trump-appointed interim U.S. attorney apologized for having celebrated Hale, claiming that he wasn't aware of Hale's radical and hate-filled beliefs. The trouble is, Martin's defense is difficult to believe: The Washington Post reported, '[I]n videos and podcasts, Martin has defended the man since at least 2023, calling him a friend who was 'slurred and smeared' by antisemitism allegations.' Six weeks before the awards ceremony ... Martin interviewed Hale-Cusanelli about the allegations and defended him in a more than hour-long episode of his 'Pro America Report' podcast, which he hosted from 2020 until early this year. A video of the episode was posted July 2 on a video-sharing platform called Rumble. All of which leads to a rather obvious concern, emphasized by Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee who've scrutinized the lawyer's record: The only thing worse than celebrating a Nazi sympathizer is lying about having celebrated a Nazi sympathizer. Nevertheless, Martin told The Forward that he 'completely' denounces the 'terrible things' Hale said. Hale's lawyer, meanwhile, has said prosecutors have painted a 'misleading' picture of his client's record. The Senate has not yet scheduled a confirmation hearing for Martin, and the calendar is of increasing relevance: If he isn't confirmed by May 20, his interim appointment will expire, and he'll have to be replaced at the U.S attorney's office. Watch this space. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
16-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ex-Jan 6 Prosecutors Demand Ed Martin Investigation: His ‘Client Is Not President Trump,' It's The US
A group of former January 6 prosecutors filed a letter this week with the Washington D.C. Bar's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, calling on the office to open an investigation into President Trump's nominee for D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin. In the letter, the former Jan. 6 prosecutors argue Martin is in violation of the Department of Justice's rules, as he uses the office to carry out Trump's retribution agenda. 'Mr. Martin's position is one of enormous responsibility, and one whose work ranges from prosecuting local crime in the District to leading important national security investigations and prosecutions,' the letter said. 'He has used his brief time in office to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a federal prosecutor, announcing investigations against his political opponents, aiding defendants he previously represented, and communicating improperly with those he did not.' The letter goes on to detail Martin's investigations into Trump's perceived political enemies, specifically mentioning Martin's letters threatening Democratic elected officials with investigations, such as the one he sent Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) requesting clarification on Schumer's statements criticizing the Supreme Court years ago. 'Mr. Martin's investigations into perceived opponents of this administration do not appear to be coincidental,' the letter said. 'Mr. Martin's client is not President Trump; it is the United States. His assertion otherwise adds further evidence that his announced investigations are politically motivated.' One of the lead signatories on the letter, former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, confirmed in an interview with TPM that the group has not yet received a response from the disciplinary office. 'I think it's important to understand that Ed Martin is not an experienced prosecutor, nor is he a particularly talented lawyer,' Ballou said. 'And so he sends out a lot of letters and tweets, but thus far it has not been followed up with, it seems, much actual legal work.' Even though it will ultimately be a challenge to delay Martin's confirmation, Ballou believes that efforts to stop it are still valuable. 'It plays an educational role, it educates the judges that he's going to have to appear in front of, and it educates the juries, the grand juries, and the trial juries that are going to be evaluating his arguments,' he explained. 'And so I think it's helpful for people to understand Mr. Martin's apparent professional violations.' This latest letter calling for an investigation into Martin is just one of many efforts to combat or delay Martin's Senate confirmation. Earlier this month, a group of Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee demanded a confirmation hearing on Martin arguing that he has 'abused his position in multiple ways since being named Interim U.S. Attorney.' Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced his intention to place a hold on Martin's nomination, saying that Martin has 'demolished the firewalls between the White House and his own office within the Department of Justice.' Senators have the power to place a hold on a presidential nominee, which may delay the confirmation, but won't necessarily block it from moving forward. And also this month, more than 100 former assistant U.S. attorneys wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining why Martin is an 'egregiously unqualified political hack who has never served either as a prosecutor or judge.'
Yahoo
29-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Attorney General Knudsen, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, argue before state Supreme Court
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen listens to a witness at his Commission on Practice disciplinary hearing on Oct. 9, 2024. (Photo by Blair Miller, Daily Montanan) Even if the Montana Supreme Court decides to suspend Attorney General Austin Knudsen for 90 days, the penalty doesn't mean he needs to lose his elected office — that's one thing his lawyer and the lawyer for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel agreed on. Friday, the Montana Supreme Court, including district court judges sitting in for recused justices, heard arguments about whether Knudsen should be punished for statements he and lawyers under his supervision made that disparaged the court and for defying a court order. At the hearing, newly sworn in Chief Justice Cory Swanson peppered both lawyers with questions, as did Justice Katherine Bidegaray and some of the five judges sitting in for recused justices. Christian Corrigan, on behalf of Knudsen, argued the court should dismiss the complaint, a 'highly irregular and unprecedented' one, and he said a more appropriate action from the court would be a 'letter of caution' to his client. 'This entire process, from investigation, complaint to hearing, has been tainted by persistent due process violations,' Corrigan said. However, Timothy Strauch, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, urged the court to find suspension appropriate to protect the integrity of the court and the rule of law. 'No lawyer is above this court's constitutional regulatory authority,' Strauch said. 'We do not have here a contrite or apologetic respondent, but a defiant one, to this day, who blames the court, the Commission (on Practice), myself and my predecessor.' The lawyers argued and judges fired questions in front of a full house, including high-profile Republican legislators and members of the public. Speaker of the House Brandon Ler, former state Sen. Keith Regier, and Montana Family Foundation President Jeff Laszloffy were among those in the gallery. Swanson, who pointed out Knudsen likely supervises more attorneys than anyone in the state, also questioned the process, and he asked the lawyers where to draw the line. Lawyers pledge to adhere to their rules of professional conduct, and the Commission on Practice, which regulates the profession, upheld 41 separate ethics violations against the Knudsen last year. 'It would seem strange for us to just rule the attorney general is not subject to those rules in some regard,' Swanson said. 'So help us figure out where that line is.' The case is unusual. It raised questions about how the state's top attorney, also head of an agency, should conduct himself, and it fueled a simmering dispute between the legislative and judicial branches in 2021 that has continued in Montana. In the September 2023 complaint, the Office for Disciplinary Counsel, which handles discipline against members of the state bar, alleged Knudsen broke rules of professional conduct for lawyers— allegations one of his lawyers initially described as a 'political stunt.' A hearing took place in October 2024, and Knudsen acknowledged he might have refrained from the 'sharp' language he used in his representation of the legislature in 2021. In fiery letters from the Attorney General's Office about the dispute, Knudsen said he saw evidence of 'judicial misconduct,' 'self interest,' 'actual impropriety' and 'bias' by the court, according to court records. Records also show Knudsen and a lawyer under his supervision both said they would not follow orders: 'The legislature does not recognize this Court's … order as binding and will not abide it.' Bidegaray said defying a court order goes to the heart of the matter. During the 2021 fight, the legislature sought to subpoena judicial records, the court quashed the subpoena, but Knudsen didn't immediately return records. Bidegaray wondered what the consequences would be if the top lawyer in Montana was allowed to disobey a court order simply because he considered it invalid. 'Does that not set the tone, or the trickle down of behavior, to the attorneys?' Bidegaray said. ' … Does that not then set some sort of standard that allows every other attorney to disregard court orders?' Corrigan said the court was on notice that Knudsen disagreed with the order, and the situation veered into unanswered questions of law. Swanson said one problem was that the issue wasn't dealt with in real time, such as with a motion to compel filed by the other party. Bidegaray, though, said it might have been more prudent, when traversing new legal terrain, for the AG to have sought a 'stay,' or pause, 'instead of just disregarding a court order.' In October 2024 following the hearing, the Commission on Practice unanimously recommended the Montana Supreme Court suspend Knudsen for 90 days for multiple violations of rules. Corrigan, though, argued the Commission on Practice botched the proceedings in numerous ways, and as a result, he said the Montana Supreme Court should toss the recommendation for a suspension. Corrigan, with the Attorney General's Office, said Knudsen acknowledged he would have done some things differently, but he also was acting in a 'narrow scenario,' where he was discharging other professional duties. As such, Corrigan suggested the court at most issue a 'letter of caution' that Knudsen walked right up to the line, and he said such an outcome would 'turn down the temperature.' Corrigan also warned the Montana Supreme Court that it shouldn't make an example of Knudsen, and he said punishing the attorney general wouldn't help people have faith in their branch of government. 'Obviously, disciplining the Attorney General on this record would not do anything to increase confidence in the judiciary,' Corrigan said. If the court just tried to turn down the temperature, though, Judge Luke Berger said he wondered if the court would leave the door open for more of the same, without some strict guidance: 'What is to stop it from happening in the future?' On behalf of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Strauch said he understood the legislature felt strongly that the court had engaged in misconduct, and it retained the 'strongest advocate' in the state in Knudsen. 'There's no doubt in my mind that he fought vigorously for his client,' Strauch said. But he also said Knudsen crossed the line when he attacked the integrity and qualifications of the court 'completely unnecessarily,' and he requested the Montana Supreme Court draw that same line and follow the commission's recommendation. 'Do we live in a world where these rules are just sort of a quaint reminder about concepts like respect for the rule of law and professionalism?' Strauch asked. Or is it a world where lawyers who swear to protect and defend the constitution and follow the rules are treated equally? Strauch said he and the AG agree that the suspension would not set up a vacancy in the office, or a situation where Knudsen would need to be replaced. According to briefings in the case, state law says the office becomes vacant if the attorney general fails to discharge duties for three consecutive months, but a suspension of even 90 days doesn't need to run consecutively, and the court could also set a period that would ensure it wouldn't equal three months (August 1 through Oct. 29, for example). Also, the attorney general must be a lawyer in 'good standing,' but a court briefing from Knudsen's team said that is a qualification for running for office, not for continuing tenure. It also said the state Constitution allows for the removal of a judge, but not for an officer of another branch, and Montanans 'overwhelmingly reelected' Knudsen while the case was pending. 'Any other act by one branch that purports to remove a constitutional officer of another branch would exceed constitutional bounds and raise grave constitutional concerns,' said the court filing. Strauch said a suspension would preserve the rule of law. Judge Gregory Bonilla, however, said the integrity of the judicial process is important, and key in the case. Bonilla said candidly, if he had worked with Knudsen, he would have cautioned him over his actions, but he said that's just one question. 'There's conduct,' Bonilla said. 'And then there's, 'Did we do it right?'' In other words, he said, he might be certain someone engaged in criminal conduct, but if the search and seizure process was compromised, it doesn't matter. 'This is what the attorney general is essentially saying, right?' Bonilla said. Strauch, though, said both jurisprudence and due process are 'sacrosanct,' and both were followed. Swanson, who took office in January, told Strauch he didn't like the statements that came from the attorney general and his team, but he didn't like the way the process unfolded either. 'This thing is a mess from start to finish,' Swanson said. 'I agree with you. A whole bunch of their statements and conduct on the front end look bad. But the proceeding, ruling on things without him having a chance to respond, and issuing this immediately before the election? … That looks political.' Strauch agreed the timing could appear political, but he said the timing was due in a large part to the request from the attorney general's team to delay the proceeding. Strauch agreed the court had a range of options, from remanding the case for more information to full suspension, but Corrigan said a remand, or 'third bite at the apple,' would not be fair to Knudsen. 'It would be inequitable for the Attorney General to have to go through this process again,' Corrigan said.
The Hill
07-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Senate Democrats file complaint against DC US attorney Ed Martin
Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have filed a formal complaint against D.C. U.S. attorney Ed Martin with the District of Columbia's Office of Disciplinary Counsel, accusing him of dismissing criminal charges against his own clients and threatening prosecution against government employees to intimidate them. 'We write to express our grave concern about actions taken by Edward Robert Martin, Jr. that may constitute professional misconduct under the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct,' wrote Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The letter, signed by all ten Democrats on the Judiciary panel, asks for the disciplinary counsel, which is overseen by the D.C. Court of Appeals to investigate whether Martin, a member of the D.C. Bar, violated rules of professional conduct. 'When a government lawyer, particularly one entrusted with a leadership role in the nation's foremost law enforcement agency, commits serious violations of professional conduct, it undermines the integrity of our justice system and erodes public confidence in it,' they wrote. Specifically, the lawmakers say that Martin while in private practice served as defense counsel in several cases related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, before personally submitting a motion to dismiss felony and misdemeanor counts against Joseph Padilla and failing to recuse himself from the case as acting U.S. attorney creating 'an impermissible conflict of interest and the appearance of impropriety by using his new government office to favor his client.' They say Martin also appeared as defense counsel for another Jan. 6 defendant, William Chrestman, a member of the Proud Boys' Kansas City chapter, who was sentenced to four and a half years in prison after pleading guilty to obstruction of an official proceeding and threatening a federal officer. Democrats say Martin only moved to withdraw his representation of Chrestman after initiating an internal review of the charges against his client, creating 'an appearance of impropriety.' Senate Democrats say there is also evidence that Martin communicated directly with Jan. 6 defendants who were not his clients after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney, including William Pope, who was charged with a felony and four misdemeanors related to the attack on the Capitol. They say that if Martin communicated directly with Pope, he 'created the appearance of impropriety because he may be called as a witness for the defendant in a matter involving the office he currently leads.' They argue that Martin has violated the D.C. Bar's prohibition on representing a client if the client may be adversely affected by the lawyer's responsibilities to or interests in a third party. 'Under this rule, Mr. Martin cannot effectively represent the United States in taking any investigative or prosecutorial steps against Mr. Padilla, including steps favorable to Mr. Padilla, in the same matter in which he defended and still represented Mr. Padilla,' they wrote. They say that Martin potentially violated the prohibition of any conduct that interferes with the administration of justice and that his representation of Padilla and Chrestman 'creates an appearance of impropriety in any review or prosecutorial steps related to his office's handling of obstruction charges against Jan. 6 defendants. And his alleged communications with Pope likely prohibits an attorney's involvement in a case in which they are likely to be a necessary witness, they argued. In addition, Democratic senators are raising alarm over what they say are the 'numerous extrajudicial statements' Martin has made threatening prosecution 'with the apparent intent of intimidating government employees and chilling the speech of private citizens.' They cite a Feb. 3 tweet and letter to Elon Musk, the leader of the Department of Government Efficiency, threatening to 'pursue any and all legal action against anyone who impedes your work or threatens your people.' They also point to a Feb. 14 tweet threatening former special counsel Jack Smith, who handled two criminal cases against President Trump before he won the 2024 election. And they note a Feb. 19 announcement that the U.S. attorney's office would investigate and prosecute alleged threats to government officials, including Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) because of his March 2020 statement at a rally in front of the Supreme Court that conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would 'pay the price' for voting against abortion rights. Martin has since dropped plans to investigate Schumer after concluding that his statements did not present a 'true threat' that could be prosecuted. 'Mr. Martin's conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer; his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice Investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law,' the Democrats wrote. They asked Office of Disciplinary Counsel to initiate an investigation and take 'appropriate disciplinary proceedings,' and would appreciate 'prompt attention to this sensitive matter.'
Yahoo
07-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump allies launch a bid to take control of a powerful Washington legal group
WASHINGTON — Two of President Donald Trump's allies have launched bids for leadership roles with the D.C. Bar Association, an under-the-radar effort that would give them more control over the influential legal group. The push comes amid bar associations' confrontations with the Trump administration, and some federal attorneys have looked to their state groups for ethical guidance amid Trump's rapid reshaping of government. Bradley Bondi — a lawyer who is Attorney General Pam Bondi's brother — and Alicia Long — a deputy to Ed Martin, Trump's interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia — are running for president and treasurer. The election runs from April to June, according to the organization's website. While the general public may not pay much attention to bar associations, lawyers do. The nongovernmental groups decide who gets to be a lawyer — and who gets to stay a lawyer when misconduct allegations are involved. The D.C. Bar, as it is known, has more than 120,000 members, and, by virtue of its location, it is where a significant number of federal attorneys are licensed. The effort to take control of the D.C. Bar follows warnings Trump administration officials have directed at bar associations, which lawyers inside and outside the government have suggested could play a role in slowing down legally questionable elements of Trump's agenda. On one of her first days as attorney general, Pam Bondi warned career lawyers that they could be fired for refusing to carry out orders because of any personal objections. Meanwhile, the D.C. Bar maintains a confidential legal ethics hotline for members to submit concerns. Bondi and Long each face one opponent. If elected, they would join the professional organization's 23-person Board of Governors. Though the D.C. Bar does not have a direct role in disciplining lawyers for misconduct, its board does recommend members to sit on the D.C. Board of Professional Responsibility, the disciplinary arm of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Disciplinary cases are brought forward by a separate Office of Disciplinary Counsel, which investigates and prosecutes ethical complaints against lawyers. With Republicans in control of the House and the Senate, bar discipline could be one of the last remaining ways to hold Trump-appointed attorneys accountable. On Thursday, a group of Democratic senators wrote a letter to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel expressing 'grave concerns' about some of the highly unusual steps Martin has taken since he became interim U.S. attorney. The letter accused him of 'serious violations of professional conduct' and abusing his position. Martin did not respond to requests for comment. Some Trump attorneys have faced sanctions in Washington for their actions. Rudy Giuliani was disbarred in Washington last year in the wake of his efforts to overturn Trump's 2020 presidential election loss; a committee of the Board on Professional Responsibility found that what it called his 'utter disregard for facts denigrates the legal profession.' Jeffrey Clark — a former Justice Department lawyer whom Trump tried to make attorney general in the days before the Jan. 6, 2021, attack — appeared before the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility last year and invoked the Fifth Amendment. A panel made a preliminary determination that he had committed an ethical violation and recommended in August that he be suspended from practicing law for two years. With Trump back in the White House, Clark is now acting administrator of the White House Office of Management and Budget's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. And a Republican report issued in December by Rep. Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, alleged possible coordination between House Jan. 6 investigators and the D.C. Bar to target an attorney who represented a former Trump White House aide. (The Office of Disciplinary Counsel dismissed that complaint last year.) Bondi's and Long's bids quickly caused some alarm among attorneys in Washington. An email seen by NBC News and sent to dozens of Washington-area lawyers — and also shared on social media — described the duo as 'Trump/Pam Bondi loyalists' who were 'making a bid to take over the DC Bar' and encouraged recipients to pay attention and vote. An attorney at a federal agency said the pro-Trump effort to win leadership positions at the D.C. Bar suggests the administration 'may be getting pushback internally' from lawyers who are concerned about potential professional consequences for carrying out Trump's agenda. 'They know this is a potential weakness,' this person added. Bondi and Long did not respond to requests for comment. The D.C. Bar did not reply to a request for comment. Bondi's opponent, Diane A. Seltzer, an attorney with a focus on employment law who already serves on the D.C. Bar's Board of Governors, said she decided to run because she saw it as the culmination of decades of bar leadership experience at a critical time in history. 'I want to be able to support the members of our bar in this time of governmental chaos,' she said. 'Our legal system needs a bar that understands and sees them and can support them in ways that will be helpful and keep everyone's energy up and keep people from giving up or burning out.' The D.C. Bar does not control the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, but anyone can submit a complaint there, which is then heard by the Board of Professional Responsibility. The D.C. Bar seeks candidates for the Board of Professional Responsibility, but the D.C. Court of Appeals ultimately chooses the candidates. There are fears among some Washington lawyers, however, that with Trump-supporting officials in place, the D.C. Bar might choose to ignore Court of Appeals rulings or orders from the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. 'I would never want to be president of a bar that could do that or that would do that,' Seltzer said. 'I wouldn't want to be president of a bar where those lines could be blurred and we would say, 'I am not going to follow what the Court of Appeals has decided or what the Office of Disciplinary Counsel has ordered.'' The disciplinary process can be protracted. Jennifer Kerkhoff Muyskens — a former assistant U.S. attorney in Washington who led the aggressive prosecution of anti-Trump protesters arrested en masse during Trump's first inauguration in 2017 — is only now facing a disciplinary hearing eight years later, accused of hiding exculpatory evidence from defendants. The Trump administration has had a contentious relationship with bar associations, and Republicans have long accused them of having a left-wing bent — tensions that reached a boiling point in Trump's first term when the American Bar Association, the national bar organization, rated several of his judicial picks as 'not qualified' for the jobs they were nominated for. Project 2025 took aim at the American Bar Association in its policy road map for a future conservative administration, calling for the president to issue an executive order pursuing antitrust measures against it. In one of his first moves as president, Trump signed an executive order that said bar associations could be targeted for investigations over their diversity programs. Last month, the American Bar Association lambasted what it described as the Trump administration's 'wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself.' After billionaire Elon Musk, who is overseeing Trump's effort to reshape government, called for judges who have ruled against Trump to be impeached, the ABA said in a new statement Tuesday that it would 'not stay silent in the face of efforts to remake the legal profession into something that rewards those who agree with the government and punishes those who do not.' It added that such attempts at intimidation 'cannot be sanctioned or normalized.' On Wednesday, Chad Mizelle, the Justice Department's chief of staff, punched back at the ABA, posting to X that 'they disguise their advocacy as work to 'promote the best quality legal education, competence, ethical conduct and professionalism, and pro bono and public service work in the legal profession,' but they never mention that they also work hand-in-hand on left-wing causes.' He also wrote that the bar association's 'dedication to left-wing activism undermines justice' and that under the attorney general's 'leadership, DOJ is carrying out President Trump's executive orders putting an end to radical DEI programs, and we're all over the ABA's illegal and immoral diversity mandates for law school accreditation.' In 2020, the ABA rated Mizelle's wife, Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, as 'not qualified' to serve as a U.S. district court judge in Florida. She was 33 at the time and the youngest person Trump had tapped for the lifetime appointment. She was confirmed to the seat in November 2020. This article was originally published on
