A federal judge has decisively rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to disqualify her from a pivotal case challenging one of President Trump’s executive orders, asserting that the department’s actions are part of a broader campaign to undermine the integrity of the judiciary.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who was nominated during the Obama administration, denies the Justice Department’s effort to remove her from the lawsuit concerning Trump’s directive targeting the prominent law firm Perkins Coie. Earlier, Judge Howell indicated that the executive order might violate constitutional rights and temporarily halted its enforcement.
The Justice Department accused Judge Howell of showing “animus” toward Trump and filed a motion for her disqualification. This move marks a significant moment as it highlights a federal judge’s active resistance against efforts to discredit the judiciary, especially as judges who oppose the Trump administration are experiencing an uptick in threats.
In her order, Judge Howell addressed the importance of maintaining judicial integrity and criticized the Justice Department’s strategy of personal attacks. “When the U.S. Department of Justice engages in this rhetorical strategy of ad hominem attack, the stakes become much larger than only the reputation of the targeted federal judge,” she stated.
She emphasized that every party in litigation deserves a fair hearing, regardless of their power or status and that no entity, including the president or federal agencies, is entitled to enforce their version of the facts. “This fundamental promise does not entitle any party… to demand adherence to their own version of the facts,” she noted.
Furthermore, she criticized the Justice Department’s claims of needing to restrict President Trump’s executive authority as lacking legal justification, referring to it as sounding more like a political talking point than a legal argument. “This reflects a grave misapprehension of our constitutional order,” she remarked.
Judge Howell asserted that evaluating whether an executive action is lawful is within the purview of the courts, not the executive branch. She also highlighted her balanced track record, noting that she ruled against the Trump administration in the Perkins Coie case but supported the government in a separate matter involving the U.S. Institute of Peace.
