Liberal law professor breaks with Obama judge over Trump lawyer crackdown: ‘I refuse to teach’ it
A federal judge appointed by President Obama, Kathleen Williams, has drawn criticism from legal figures across the political spectrum after referring lawyers connected to President Trump and the Justice Department for potential disciplinary action by bar associations. The move has proved particularly notable because even some commentators who are not ideologically aligned with the Trump administration have objected, with one liberal constitutional law professor saying he will not teach the judge's reasoning to his students as an acceptable legal precedent.
Williams formally referred Trump attorney Alejandro Brito to the bar over his conduct, in a case that also touches on the role of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. The professor's public break with the judge highlights unease, even among those sympathetic to scrutiny of the administration, that using bar discipline against government lawyers could set a troubling precedent for legal practice more broadly. The article notes the dispute unfolds against a backdrop of wider tension between the judiciary and the Trump Justice Department.
- Obama-appointed judge referred a Trump lawyer for bar discipline
- A liberal law professor publicly disagreed with the judge's approach
- Move criticised by legal figures across the political spectrum
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Those defending the referral argue that judges have a professional and ethical duty to report conduct they believe crosses recognised lines of legal ethics, regardless of who is involved, and that shielding senior DOJ lawyers from ordinary bar oversight would itself corrode the rule of law. They contend that accountability mechanisms exist precisely to be applied even-handedly to powerful officials, and that a judge declining to act out of political caution would represent a graver failure of judicial independence than the referral itself. Supporters, including some who otherwise sympathise with the administration's broader legal positions, see this as a principled application of professional standards rather than a partisan act.
The case against
Critics, including sympathetic legal scholars, worry that referring a sitting administration's lawyers for bar discipline over contested legal judgments risks turning professional regulation into a tool of political conflict, chilling zealous advocacy by DOJ attorneys who must defend unpopular positions. They argue that disagreements over legal strategy or aggressive litigation tactics are properly contested through appeals, sanctions motions, or public criticism, not bar referrals that can end careers and deter capable lawyers from serving in government. This camp fears that normalising such referrals invites tit-for-tat escalation, with future judges of differing political leanings targeting opposing administrations' lawyers in turn.