Latest news with #Tirrell
The Hill
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Schiff, Democrats demand rationale on Bondi firing of ethics attorney
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) asked Attorney General Pam Bondi for her rationale in firing the Justice Department's top ethics attorney, asking for details on who will provide ethics guidance to the department. Bondi fired Joseph Tirrell, director of the Departmental Ethics Office, on Friday after more than 20 years at the Justice Department and the FBI. The firing of Tirrell marks the removal of one of the last remaining career ethics leaders in the department. 'This latest dismissal of a career ethics official continues the Department's systematic dismantling of its internal ethics safeguards under your watch, which further undermines public confidence and congressional trust in the Department and its senior leadership,' Schiff wrote in a letter joined by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.). Ethical matters are of top concern to Democrats given Bondi and other top Justice Department officials' background serving as part of President Trump's private legal team. Schiff noted that in confirmation hearings, Bondi and other top officials said they would rely on career ethics officials for guidance on matters where they may have a conflict of interest. 'You also stated in your own written responses to the Committee that you would 'consult with the appropriate officials at the Department of Justice, including career ethics officials, regarding any matters that raise conflict of interest concerns prior to making any decisions,' they lawmakers wrote. 'However, your removal of remaining career ethics officials renders these commitments meaningless and leaves the Department without the institutional expertise necessary to provide rigorous, impartial ethical guidance.' Shortly after Trump took office, Brad Weinsheimer, another top ethics official, resigned after he was reassigned to a new working group focused on cracking down on sanctuary cities. Jeffrey Ragsdale, the head of the Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the conduct of attorneys in the department, was fired in March. 'The dismissal of a career official who has dedicated his professional career to public service without explanation sends a chilling message to the entire federal workforce about the value this administration places on institutional knowledge and ethics expertise,' Schiff wrote. 'You subsequently transferred these responsibilities, traditionally assigned to senior career DOJ officials, to inexperienced political appointees.' DOJ did not respond to request for comment. In a post on LinkedIn titled 'fired from DOJ without cause, Tirrell attached his termination notice signed by Bondi, which like others fired, cites only the article of the Constitution establishing the presidency as the authority for doing so. The letter to Bondi asks for the 'specific legal justification' for firing Tirrell, who will now have responsibility for providing ethics guidance, and how she 'reconcile[s]' her pledge to seek outside ethics advice with the firing of Tirrell and others in similar roles. 'The American people deserve confidence that ethics determinations are made by experienced career officials based on established precedent and legal principles, not by politically-motivated appointees who lack the necessary expertise or independence,' the lawmakers wrote. 'The removals of Mr. Tirrell and other career ethics DOJ officials create a dangerous vacuum in ethics expertise at a time when the Department and its officials face unprecedented ethical challenges.'
Yahoo
15-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pam Bondi abruptly fires Justice Department's top ethics chief in four-sentence letter
Attorney General Pam Bondi has fired the ethics director at the Department of Justice in a four-sentence letter that misspells his name, marking the latest departure from the agency during a mass exodus of career prosecutors under Donald Trump's administration. A letter to 'Jospeh Tirrell' sent on July 11 and seen by The Independent notes his termination is 'effective immediately' but does not state a reason why he was abruptly fired. Joseph Tirrell, who had served as the director of the Justice Department's ethics office since 2023, was responsible for reviewing financial disclosures and other matters related to the attorney general's office and other top law enforcement officials. He led a team of roughly 30 people to ensure government lawyers and other officials adhered to ethical guidelines. 'My public service is not over, and my career as a federal civil servant is not finished,' he wrote Monday on LinkedIn. 'I took the oath at 18 as a midshipman to 'support and defend the Constitution of the United States.' I have taken that oath at least five more times since then. That oath did not come with the caveat that I need only support the Constitution when it is easy or convenient.' Tirrell's firing follows Bondi's purge of roughly 20 Justice Department employees involved in former Special Counsel Jack Smith's investigations into the former president. Tirrell had reportedly approved Smith's receipt of $140,000 in pro bono legal fees from the firm Covington & Burling before his resignation. It is unclear whether Tirrell's firing is related. Pam Bondi abruptly fired the director of the Justice Department's ethics office on July 11 as career prosecutors quit the agency in droves (AFP via Getty Images) Shortly after taking office, the president dismissed the government's top ethics watchdog, sparking a legal battle that reached the Supreme Court. That independent Office of Government Ethics would regularly consult with Tirrell's team. Tirrell's sudden firing also 'shines a bright spotlight back on her own glaring ethical conflicts and how she's handled major DOJ decisions involving her former clients, including the government of Qatar and Pfizer, according to Jon Golinger with democratic advocacy group Public Citizen. 'The question this drastic firing raises is: are there even worse ethics problems Bondi is trying to hide?' Career prosecutors are also quitting the agency in droves since Trump's election. More than 100 lawyers at the Justice Department's federal programs bench, which defends the president's policy actions in court, have left their positions in recent months. Roughly 250 attorneys at the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division — accounting for 70 percent of the lawyers there – also quit the agency within the first few months of the Trump administration. The latest shakeups at the Justice Department also arrive as the administration fumbles for answers about investigations into Jeffrey Epstein, as MAGA loyalists turn on the president, Bondi and other top law enforcement officials over the administration's failure to release more information about the sex offender and his alleged client list. The Justice Department last week said Epstein, who was facing charges of sex trafficking, did not leave behind such a list, though Bondi in February suggested it was on her desk. She later said she was referring to the overall case. But the Justice Department ultimately concluded that public disclosure of such materials would be inappropriate and remain under seal by a federal judge, frustrating the president's supporters and conspiracy theorists who have linked the Epstein case to allegations of a wider corruption and sex abuse scandal involving minors and powerful figures. The Independent has requested comment from the Justice Department.
Axios
14-07-2025
- Politics
- Axios
Pam Bondi ousts ethics watchdog amid DOJ purge
Attorney General Pam Bondi fired the ethics director at the Department of Justice on Friday, removing the staff in charge of advising her and other officials on how to navigate conflicts of interest. Why it matters: The ethics director was fired on the same day that Bondi dismissed more than 20 employees involved in various investigations of President Donald Trump, reflecting an ongoing purge of personnel at the department. Context: On Monday, former director Joseph Tirrell confirmed on LinkedIn that he had been fired from the position without being given a reason for his removal. Tirrell has worked for the DOJ for 16 years, and became director of the departmental ethics office in July of 2023, according to his official staff profile. In the LinkedIn post, Tirrell said he was responsible for "ensuring that the 117,000 Department employees were properly advised on and supported in how to follow the Federal employee ethics rules." The Department of Justice declined to comment on why Tirrell was dismissed. The intrigue: Tirrell advised Special Counsel Jack Smith on ethical considerations during his criminal prosecutions of President Trump, according to Bloomberg Law. That included approving approximately $140,000 in pro bono legal assistance from Covington & Burling law firm, which Smith disclosed after conducting his investigation into the president. Zoom out: The staffers ousted on Friday were identified during an internal investigation carried out by the "Weaponization Working Group," which Bondi established to review"unethical prosecutions" amongst other things in February.
Yahoo
10-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump administration seeks to dismiss lawsuit by New Hampshire transgender teens
Attorney Chris Erchull (left) speaks outside U.S. District Court of New Hampshire on behalf of Parker Tirrell (right) after a U.S. District Court judge temporarily blocked a law barring transgender girls from girls' sports teams from taking effect on Monday, Aug. 19, 2024. (Photo by Ethan DeWitt/New Hampshire Bulletin) The U.S. Justice Department is defending itself against two New Hampshire transgender high school students who allege that President Donald Trump's executive orders earlier this year would unconstitutionally deprive them of playing girls' sports. In a June 6 filing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Richard Lawson argued the two students, Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle, had not established an imminent risk of being affected by the executive orders. And he contended that even if the executive order did affect the students, the administration's intent — to prevent transgender girls from playing girls' sports — is lawful. '… The Sports Order's classification is rationally related to the physical advantages of males in sports and serves the legitimate government purpose of ensuring equal opportunities for females,' Lawson wrote. The filing comes as Tirrell and Turmelle are suing the state of New Hampshire in federal court to overturn House Bill 1205, a 2024 New Hampshire law that limits middle school and high school girls' sports teams to children who were female at birth. That law would prevent Tirrell and Turmelle, both transgender girls, from participating on their sports teams. In September, Judge Landya McCafferty of the U.S. District Court of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction that temporarily stops HB 1205 from applying to Tirrell and Turmelle, allowing them to continue playing while the case proceeds. That order does not apply to other transgender students in the state. But while the state law is temporarily frozen, lawyers for Tirrell and Turmelle argue Trump's executive orders this year pose a new threat. Those orders, titled 'Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government' and 'Keeping Men out of Women's Sports,' require the Department of Education to interpret Title IX, the law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in schools, to exclude transgender female athletes from female sports and warn school districts to align their policies to that interpretation or lose federal funding. In February, attorneys for Turmelle and Tirrell filed a motion to expand their lawsuit against the state to also include the Trump administration, and specifically asked the New Hampshire District Court to strike down Trump's executive orders. In its recent response, the Trump administration argues there is no evidence that the president's executive orders have affected Tirrell or Turmelle yet, and that the lawsuit seeking to stop those orders should thus be dismissed. Without that direct harm, plaintiffs have failed to state a proper claim for a lawsuit, defendants wrote. 'Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing, and their stated speculative risk of future injury is not close to imminent and may never become ripe,' the Department of Justice wrote. The plaintiffs had argued that the executive order 'to target investigations and rescind federal funding' put the girls' ability to continue playing on girls' sports teams at risk. But the government argues that that alleged threat is not strong enough. And they say the plaintiffs have not met a critical two-part test: to show that the injury is both 'imminent' — meaning it is 'certainly impending' and not just speculative — and 'particularized' — meaning it specifically affects the plaintiffs suing, and not just the general population. In an interview Monday, Chris Erchull, staff attorney for GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), rejected the government's contention that the executive orders do not pose a threat to the New Hampshire students. He pointed to the Trump administration's April lawsuit against the Maine Department of Education, in which the administration argued the state was violating Title IX by allowing transgender students to compete on girls' sports teams. That example, Erchull said, indicates that the administration could easily turn its attention on New Hampshire school districts. 'If they're not challenging the executive order in court, without court protection, the United States Department of Education can and almost certainly will go after the school districts where these two young people play sports and try to cut funding to those schools,' he said. But the Department of Justice attorneys wrote that any future funding cuts to Turmelle or Tirrell's public schools that might result from Trump's executive order would involve a number of decisions in the future and are 'far too speculative,' the government wrote. The process to cut off Title IX funds to a school district requires the Department of Education to file a notice to the school district, includes a potential hearing, and mandates a full written report to Congress, all of which can take months, the government wrote. 'Plaintiffs here do not (and cannot) plausibly allege that the Agency Defendants have even started this multi-step process for any educational program in New Hampshire, much less the two particular schools that Plaintiffs attend,' the government wrote. 'They do not (and cannot) point to even an initiated investigation in New Hampshire.' Attorneys with the Justice Department suggested that the U.S. Department of Education might not even bother with investigations into New Hampshire schools, since the state already passed a state law, HB 1205, barring transgender girls from playing girls' sports. Even if Tirrell and Turmelle are blocked from participating in sports, the executive orders do not violate the Fifth Amendment or Title IX, the government motion argues. According to the motion, Trump's executive orders are designed to protect women's sports, meaning that they uphold the purpose of Title IX. 'Because of the inherent physiological difference between males and females, the Sports Order's policy of 'oppos[ing] male competitive participation in women's sports' is substantially related to the important government interest of safety, fairness, and ensuring 'women and girls the equal opportunity to participate and excel in competitive sports,'' the motion states. The government's motion continues by asserting that neither transgender status nor gender identity are protected classes under Title IX. In 2020, the Supreme Court held in Bostock v. Clayton County that gender identity is a protected class under the anti-sex-based discrimination provision of Title VII, in a case relating to employment law. But the Department of Justice says that decision does not apply to Title IX, and that the goal of keeping girls' sports exclusive to cisgender girls is allowed under federal law. Erchull disagrees. 'When you make a transgender status-based classification, that's a sex-based classification,' he said. 'And we have tons of precedent that says that that is entitled to heightened scrutiny, but what the federal government is saying is that that doesn't count.' The plaintiffs in the case will likely file a response brief to the government's motion in the coming weeks, and eventually the parties will appear in federal court for oral arguments, Erchull said. And attorneys on both sides are watching the Supreme Court this month. Justices are expected to issue a decision in United States v. Skrmetti, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a Tennessee ban on transgender medical care. The decision could affect how both sides shape their arguments in New Hampshire, Erchull said.
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Lawyers look to have Trump dropped from NH transgender sports ban lawsuit
Attorneys for the Trump administration have filed a motion seeking to be dropped from a lawsuit filed by two transgender teens fighting a New Hampshire law and a presidential executive order banning them from playing girls school sports. The families of Parker Tirrell, 16, and Iris Turmelle, 14, and the civil rights advocates representing them filed a motion in February in U.S. District Court in Concord to expand their lawsuit to challenge President Donald Trump's executive order banning transgender athletes from playing in girls and women's sports. In a motion filed Friday, Deputy Associate Attorney General Richard Lawson argued attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle — following months of litigation challenging state law — are now attempting to 'drag the federal government into a lawsuit well under way not because of any imminent injury, but because of a generalized grievance with policies set by the President of the United States.' GLAD Law and the ACLU of New Hampshire are representing Tirrell and Turmelle, who sued state Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, members of the State Board of Education and the students' respective school districts in August. The case challenges HB 1205, also known as the 'Fairness in Women's Sports Act,' signed into law last July. The law requires athletes in grades 5-12 to play on interscholastic or club teams matching the sex on their birth certificates. In September, U.S. District Court Chief Judge Landya McCafferty blocked enforcement of the law while it is being challenged in court. Trump signed an executive order on Feb. 5 called 'Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports' to bar transgender girls and women from playing in girls and women's sports. Just two days after attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle filed their motion to add Trump as a defendant in their lawsuit, the New Hampshire Interscholastic Athletic Association told schools to abide by the order, saying in a news release that noncompliance could lead to 'possible consequences to federal funding.' In the motion filed Friday, Lawson argued attorneys for Tirrell and Turmelle failed to claim the federal defendants have taken 'a single action' to implement the executive order against the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs' schools, or 'even in the state of New Hampshire.' 'What's worse, plaintiffs' attempts to rope the federal defendants into this case are based on flawed understanding of Equal Protection law' and separation of powers, the motion states. 'Plaintiffs lack constitutional standing and their stated speculative risk of future injury is not close to imminent and may never become ripe,' Lawson argued in his motion. The motion asks the judge to dismiss the claims against Trump, the justice and education departments and department heads. 'Plaintiffs assert a Fifth Amendment equal protection claim alleging that the 'Sports Order' impermissibly discriminates 'on the basis of sex,'' Lawson wrote, adding the plaintiffs also argued the order discriminates based on 'transgender status.' 'The Sports Order simply reaffirms that males and females are not similarly situated when it comes to sports,' Lawson wrote. 'The Supreme Court recognizes that 'differences between men and women' are 'enduring' and thus sex is not an inherently 'proscribed classification.' The biological differences between the sexes make them dissimilarly situated in sports, with males having a distinct physical advantage.'
