The E. Barrett Prettyman United States Court House in Washington, D.C.
J. David Ake/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
J. David Ake/Getty Images
A federal judge has dismissed the Justice Department’s request to remove her from a case that is contesting one of President Trump’s executive orders. The judge claimed the department’s actions were an attempt to undermine the judicial system.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who was appointed during the Obama era, denies the department’s attempt to disqualify her in the lawsuit concerning Trump’s directive that sanctions the prestigious law firm Perkins Coie. Earlier in the month, Howell noted that the order likely breached constitutional norms and temporarily halted its enforcement.
The Justice Department retaliated by accusing Howell, a judge in the D.C. District Court, of showing ongoing “animus” toward Trump and submitted a motion to disqualify her.
Howell’s ruling serves as a rare instance where a federal judge openly rebuffs efforts to discredit the judiciary, especially as judges who have opposed the Trump administration face a surge of threats this year.
“The U.S. Department of Justice’s engagement in this type of ad hominem attacks escalates the stakes beyond just the reputation of the individual judge being targeted,” Howell stated in her Thursday order.
“This tactic aims to tarnish the federal judicial system’s integrity, attributing any loss to the judge instead of identifying flaws in the legal arguments being presented.”
The Justice Department has also attempted to disqualify Judge James Boasberg from overseeing a case regarding Trump’s enactment of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
In a social media post early Thursday, Trump contended that “it is virtually impossible for me to receive an Honest Ruling in D.C.,” claiming that judges in the region and in New York hold bias against him.
“Their own version of the facts”
In her ruling on Thursday, Howell emphasized that no judicial determination stands alone, and that every litigant is entitled to an unbiased and fair hearing.
“However, this fundamental promise does not give any party—not even those wielding the power and prestige of the President of the United States or a federal agency—the right to impose their own narrative of the facts and desired legal outcome,” she articulated.
Judge Howell emphasized that the responsibility of ascertaining factual truth lies with the courts, critiquing the Justice Department’s claim regarding the “necessity to limit ongoing executive overreach by President Trump as seen nationwide.”
“Such a statement, resembling a talking point rather than a legal argument from the U.S. Department of Justice, lacks references to any legal basis, stemming instead from a significant misunderstanding of our constitutional framework,” she added.
“Determining the legality of an exercise of power by the Executive Branch is fundamentally the duty of federal courts, not the President or the Department of Justice, although a thorough defense of executive actions is expected and can assist the courts in resolving legal disputes,” she concluded. Howell also noted that while she opposed the administration in the Perkins Coie case, she sided with the government in a recent matter contesting an action against the U.S. Institute of Peace.
