Federal Judge Beryl Howell Denies DOJ Effort to Disqualify Her in High-Stakes Trump Executive Order Lawsuit

In a forceful rebuke to the Justice Department, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell on Wednesday denied a motion seeking her disqualification from a lawsuit over former President Donald Trump’s controversial executive order aimed at the Democratic-aligned law firm Perkins Coie. The case, now shaping up as a constitutional showdown, centers on allegations that Trump is using federal power to retaliate against his political and legal opponents.

Howell, a senior judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, accused the DOJ of launching “ad hominem attacks” to discredit her impartiality. In her ruling, Howell warned that the disqualification attempt represents a dangerous tactic designed to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.

“This strategy is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than fallacies in the substantive legal arguments presented,” she wrote in her opinion.

Trump’s Executive Order: A Direct Attack on Law Firms

The lawsuit stems from a March 2025 executive order signed by Trump, which effectively blacklisted Perkins Coie from federal government interactions. The order:

• Barred employees of the firm from entering federal buildings
• Directed agencies to terminate contracts with Perkins Coie clients
• Cited the firm’s previous political work, including representing Democratic campaigns and connections to Fusion GPS

The executive action prompted immediate legal action by Perkins Coie, arguing that the order unlawfully punishes the firm for engaging in protected political and legal activity. The firm’s court filings detailed the economic damage, including the loss of a 35-year relationship with a major government contractor—within just six days of the order’s issuance.

DOJ Claims Bias Over Trump Comments

DOJ officials Chad Mizelle and Richard Lawson filed the March 21 motion to disqualify Howell, citing what they allege is clear judicial bias. They pointed to remarks Howell made during a 2023 speech, where she warned of the “impact of big lies” in connection with January 6 prosecutions. At that event, hosted by the Women’s White Collar Defense Association, Howell expressed concern about public disregard for factual integrity—a sentiment the DOJ says indicates hostility toward Trump.

They also referenced a recent court hearing in which Howell remarked that Trump had a “bee in his bonnet” about Fusion GPS, the political research firm tied to the infamous Steele dossier.

“This court has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the president,” Mizelle and Lawson claimed.

However, Howell dismissed these arguments as lacking merit and reaffirmed her commitment to fairness:

“The parties will have the opportunity to present relevant evidence and legal arguments, which will receive full, fair, and impartial consideration, as does every case before this court.”

Broader Pattern: Trump’s Retaliatory Targeting of Law Firms

Perkins Coie is not alone. Trump’s latest executive orders also singled out Jenner & Block, directing federal agencies to:

• Revoke access to federal facilities for firm employees
• Investigate diversity hiring practices
• Revoke security clearances
• Cancel government contracts with Jenner clients

The targeting of law firms with perceived Democratic ties is unprecedented, marking a dramatic escalation in the weaponization of executive power against legal institutions.

Political Fallout: Stefanik Demands Judicial Investigation

The legal battle also has a political dimension. Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a vocal Trump ally, filed a formal complaint in December 2023 urging an investigation into Howell’s remarks at the 2023 white-collar defense event. Her request, currently pending with the Judicial Council of the D.C. Circuit, claims Howell’s comments reflect unacceptable political bias from the bench.

What’s Next for Perkins Coie v. DOJ?

The case—Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-00716—could become a landmark test of constitutional limits on executive power, particularly regarding retaliation, due process, and the First Amendment. With Howell remaining on the case, the spotlight now shifts to whether Trump’s sweeping executive actions will survive legal scrutiny.

This lawsuit may shape future debates over the independence of the legal profession, judicial impartiality, and political retaliation under color of law.

Related Articles:

• Trump Targets Law Firms Over Democratic Ties—Legal Experts Warn of Dangerous Precedent
• Perkins Coie Countersues DOJ Over Retaliatory Executive Order
• Fusion GPS: The Research Firm at the Center of Trump’s Legal Obsession
• Judicial Ethics Under Fire: Rep. Stefanik’s Push to Investigate Federal Judges

The post Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Bid to Disqualify Her in Trump Executive Order Case Targeting Perkins Coie first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent legal development, U.S. District Judge William Osteen, based in Greensboro, rejected North Carolina Supreme Court Justice Anita Earls’ request for a preliminary injunction. Earls sought to prevent the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission from investigating her in response to comments she made regarding the lack of diversity within the state’s judiciary.

The Rejected Injunction

Judge Osteen, appointed by former President George W. Bush, dismissed Earls’ plea for a preliminary injunction, asserting that it was essential to safeguard her freedom of speech. The rejection comes despite Earls’ claims that the ongoing investigation by the Judicial Standards Commission is an infringement on her constitutional rights.

The Appeal

Pressly Millen, representing Earls from the law firm Womble Bond Dickinson, expressed dissatisfaction with the ruling and pledged to appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Millen contended that the court failed to recognize the constitutional violations faced by Justice Earls throughout the Commission’s investigations.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

The Origins of the Investigation

The Judicial Standards Commission initiated its inquiry following Justice Earls’ comments to Law360 in June. In the interview, Earls addressed issues such as “implicit biases” among colleagues, the underrepresentation of Black law clerks, and the disbandment of a commission focused on examining racial and gender inequality within the judicial system.

Allegations and Violations

The Commission, comprised of 16 members, notified Earls in August that they were investigating whether her remarks violated the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. The focus was on whether Earls’ comments alleged that her colleagues were making decisions based on racial, gender, or political bias, potentially violating Canon 2A of the Code, which emphasizes a judge’s responsibility to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Earls’ Response

In a lawsuit filed in August, Earls characterized the Commission’s actions as a direct assault on her First Amendment rights. She claimed the investigation had coerced her into declining speaking and writing opportunities. Despite her arguments, Judge Osteen declined to intervene in an ongoing state proceeding, emphasizing the state’s interest in enforcing the Code and maintaining the judiciary’s integrity.

Judicial Integrity Concerns

Judge Osteen acknowledged the plausibility that Earls’ statements constituted core political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, he also noted the potential implication that her statements suggested a group of justices prioritizing ideology over the law. In recognizing the state’s interest in such allegations and their potential impact on judicial integrity, Osteen opted not to interfere in the ongoing investigation.

This legal development unfolds in the case of Earls v. North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission, et al., within the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, docket number 23-cv-00734.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction in Judicial Ethics Investigation first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent development, the United States Supreme Court has introduced a new code of conduct, drawing inspiration from existing ethical guidelines for lower court judges. While the document shares similarities with its lower court counterpart, significant deviations emerge on crucial issues such as enforcement, conflicts of interest, and defining misconduct. Here’s an in-depth examination of the key changes and implications:

Upholding Judicial Integrity

The first section, emphasizing maintaining the judiciary’s integrity and independence, diverges in its wording. The Supreme Court’s version omits a sweeping line in the lower court document, setting the tone for potential disparities in applying ethical standards.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Impropriety and the ‘Knowingly’ Standard

The second part instructs judges and justices to avoid “impropriety” and the “appearance of impropriety.” The Supreme Court introduced the term “knowingly,” sparking criticism for potentially providing an avenue for claiming ignorance when facing allegations of improper conduct.

Reporting and Recusals

Without a mechanism for public complaints or formal reviews, the third section addresses the performance of duties, urging fairness and impartiality. Notably, the Supreme Court’s version limits the duty to act on ethics violations to instances of employee misconduct and introduces a nuanced perspective on recusals.

Law-Related Pursuits and Financial Disclosures

The fourth part outlines the permissible participation of judges and justices in various activities, with the Supreme Court restricting involvement in events promoting “commercial” products or services, excluding book promotions. Variances emerge regarding financial interests, divestment recommendations, and compensation regulations, shedding light on the unique considerations for Supreme Court justices.

Make informed decisions in real time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Political Activity: Defining the Undefined

The final section addresses political activity, where a notable distinction arises. While the lower courts’ code defines “political organization,” the Supreme Court’s version remains silent, leaving room for interpretation and potential uncertainties.

In essence, introducing the new code of conduct by the U.S. Supreme Court raises questions about its alignment with existing guidelines and its potential impact on ethical standards within the highest echelons of the judiciary. The nuanced differences in language and approach underscore the challenges of adapting ethical frameworks to the distinctive nature of the Supreme Court’s institutional setting.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post U.S. Supreme Court Adopts New Code of Conduct: A Comparative Analysis first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The Georgia Supreme Court has rendered a decision to remove a state appeals judge from his position following an extensive investigation. The judge, Christian Coomer, who had previously served as a state legislator and was a member of the Atlanta-based Georgia Court of Appeals, faced allegations of violating campaign finance regulations and exploiting an elderly client.

The ruling, issued on Wednesday, upheld the conclusions of a hearing panel that had found Coomer’s actions to be in bad faith and driven by personal financial gain. The court’s decision stressed that Coomer’s repeated disregard for legal regulations and professional ethics eroded the public’s confidence in his capacity to impartially administer the law in the cases brought before him.

In a comprehensive 49-page opinion, the Georgia Supreme Court expressed its concern, asserting, “By demonstrating a pattern of refusing to comply with the law and professional norms when noncompliance was in his interest, he has undermined the public’s trust in his ability to follow and apply the law honestly and fairly in cases that come before him.”

See also: Supreme Court Urged to Implement Ethics and Transparency Reforms, According to ABA Task Force

In response to the court’s decision, Coomer conveyed his disappointment in a statement, conceding, “I acknowledge that my own errors in judgment resulted in the Supreme Court’s decision.” Coomer, a legal practitioner, had transitioned from his role as a member of the Georgia House of Representatives to assume the position of a judge on the Court of Appeals in 2018. Notably, before his formal induction as a judge, Coomer utilized campaign funds to finance a family trip to Hawaii. Despite his attempt to justify the trip as having a legislative purpose, the court’s opinion pointed out that it was primarily a leisure trip.

Don’t settle for a mediocre legal job. Search BCG Attorney Search for the best opportunities!

This judicial controversy unfolded with Coomer being suspended from his judicial duties, with pay, since January 2021, subsequent to the initiation of disciplinary charges by the state’s Judicial Qualifications Commission against him. The commission’s hearing panel undertook a comprehensive investigation into multiple facets of Coomer’s conduct.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Of particular interest was Coomer’s involvement with James Filhart, an elderly client, prior to his judicial appointment. Coomer played a pivotal role in drafting Filhart’s will, positioning himself initially as the executor, and later including his wife in the role, while designating his own children as beneficiaries. More notably, Coomer secured a loan of $130,000 from Filhart, leveraging terms of repayment that he himself had drafted. After thorough examination, the hearing panel concluded that Coomer had abused the trust Filhart placed in him, leveraging the vulnerable position of his elderly client to gain control over his financial assets.

The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision to remove Coomer from office marks a significant stance on maintaining the integrity of the judiciary. It underscores the critical importance of adhering to ethical and legal standards for judges, who play a fundamental role in upholding the rule of law and public trust in the justice system.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Georgia Supreme Court Ousts Appeals Judge for Breaching Ethics Standards first appeared on JDJournal Blog.