Deputy Attorney General Blanche's attack on lower courts is an impressive combination of light on substance; shamelessly hypocritical; and profoundly dangerous. More people should be condemning it.
Anyone who's taken the trouble to read the thoroughly researched and cited, and exhaustively reasoned, decisions of these courts that are "at war" with Trump's DOJ knows precisely how ludicrous this claim is.
He's lucky the courts are being so circumspect in dealing with the buffoons who come before them with their meritless and candorless arguments. Most of them couldn't prevail in a simple dogbite case.
Yep. The district courts have been their own worst enemies with how pathetically they've responded to being openly lied to, and having their orders violated on the most absurd pretexts, over and over again. The lack of any consequence whatsoever for bad behavior invites further bad behavior.
In a sense, I get it-- the appeals courts and especially SCOTUS have repeatedly thrown them under the bus and assiduously worked to erase and cover up the administration's misconduct (cf. last Friday's ruling in the Alien Enemies Act case from the DC Circuit, which more or less acknowledged that a corrupt panel of its own judges had managed to entangle the case for eight months through the most transparent procedural BS) and so they're trying to make everything watertight. But it's not effective.
I find DAG Blanche’s comments to mirror the statements of disrespect attributed by whistleblowers to Judge Bove.
Sadly, “war’ is a buzzword for the administration: Dept of War; war on narco-terrorists; and ICE is at war with protesters, etc. By using the buzzword, the speakers purpose is to project power and control, surely not respect and civility. The time has long passed when those in power like Todd Blanche must do their part to restore civility to dialogue. The best leaders understand this; those who cannot think independently, lack the required courage and humility.
Professor Vladeck, you're right to highlight that this is "war." You're right to highlight this is a war that even was declared publicly by Trump and his supporters. But this is not a "war on judges."
In only a limited sense could judges could be seen as the target of Trump's war because, as James Madison highlighted in The Federalist No. 51, "Ambition" was meant "to counteract ambition. The interest of the man [who holds a position was meant to be] connected with the constitutional rights of the place." But, Madison emphasized, it was merely "a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
The far greater truth about our Constitution is stated in the Preamble, the Supremacy Clause and the relevant oaths of office. "We the People" (acting as the sovereign and as the supreme legislative authority) did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." To do so, the People established our Constitution as the paramount authority in "the supreme Law of the Land" and established that every public servant must "support [our] Constitution." The People vested limited power in the President solely to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [the President's] Ability."
If judges are fulfilling their duty to support our Constitution, then Trump's war is on our Constitution, so it is a war on us. But when a judge violates her oath to support our Constitution (like the Fifth Circuit judge who attacked you for opposing and exposing judges abusing their powers or usurping powers they were not granted), she doesn't deserve and should not have our support. As Article III emphasized, we must judge judges by their behavior: all federal "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts" may "hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour." As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 79, only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”
In my opinion, Disciplinary Complaints should be filed by individual lawyers and legal organizations with the Bar Associations and federal courts against Todd Blanche for his knowing violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4,for lack of candor with the courts and in misleading the courts by virtue of his totally unsupported claim that district judges are intending to interfere with Trump's grand scheme of impending authoritarianism. Let the Bar Associations act on reports of false statements by Blanche. I am tired of lawyers intentionally and knowingly lying to courts, their opponents and the public. I practiced law for 52 years, and this intentional disregard for the truth has become ubiquitous and must be stopped, and who better to stop this behavior than bar associations, disciplinary organizations and the courts themselves.
As I noted before, the American Bar Association should be a leader in requiring lawyers to obey the Rules of Professional Conduct especially on issues involving high ranking Justice Department officials like Mr. Todd Blanche, president Trump's former personal attorney. Making wild and grossly inaccurate statements about 120 district court judges is beneath even Trump standards, if anyone can go that low. I will contact the former CEO of the ABA, a good friend of mine, to see if he can stimulate the ABA to take a position and prosecute offenders like Todd Blanche who is willing to defame 120 federal judges.
The comment is based on a common misperception, that the ABA licenses and disciplines lawyers. It does neither. The states license lawyers. Disciplinary authority therefore rests with the states that license them -- either with the state bar association (Wisconsin is an example) or the state supreme court (Illinois is an example). The ABA publishes Model Rules of Professional Conduct, true, but those are model rules for licensing states to adopt in whole or in part as each state sees fit. They aren't rules the ABA enforces. It has no enforcement power.
The broad recurring context of this administration is that state bar associations have preemptively declared themselves completely powerless to regulate federal-government attorneys practicing in their courts. Filing complaints is essentially pointless because they won't be adjudicated; they'll be swept under the rug on jurisdictional pretexts.
Mark off one more supposedly democratic institution that turned out to be a total sham the moment it was stress-tested.
Don't underestimate the tendency of most bar associations to shy away from rebuking their own unless the ruling of discipline is predicted to be a slam dunk and the violation is of a type the bar has tons of experience dealing with like improper use of client trust accounts. The bars run screaming from the very notion of dealing with unfamiliar issues and fact patterns. They freeze up when that happens and lose all initiative.
Not being in the law profession, I can't relate and would have thought that courage would have accompanied all of the knowledge held by those in the Bar Associations. I believe you, but I'm surprised.
Two structural elements of bar associations actually automatically constrain their ability to pursue disciplinary action against their own: (1) being an industry association dedicated first and foremost to protecting its members and their interests and not harming them, and (2) possessing significantly insufficient personnel and resources to be able to administer an "outside of the box" disciplinary proceeding against an extremely well-funded and politically powerful member of the bar who would be the subject of discipline.
Thank you for this clear and well reasoned essay. Blanche is a stooge and toady whose bellicose statements should be condemned by any jurist or attorney (which I am not) who says they respect the rule of law.
I fear all of this is a prelude to interfering with the 2026 midterm elections, either to prevent Republican losses or overturn them after the election. Republicans have been and will continue to file a steady stream of court challenges to voters, election officials, voting and results and they want their supporters to assume that any adverse ruling is from an "activist judge" and not a legitimate application of the law. It's not their only reason for attacking judges, but it is one of if not their main goal.
Also, where the hell is Chief Justice Roberts in all of this? As the head of the federal judiciary, he should be repeatedly condemning attacks on federal judges and courts. Remaining silent is as much of a political act as saying something. It's also part of his job.
Expecting John Roberts to condemn these people is like expecting Roland Friesler to condemn Hitler's abuses of power in Nazi Germany. The guy is a card-carrying member of this political movement installed in office to do its bidding. Expecting him to behave like an impartial jurist is a fantasy.
Coalition Rips Trump Deputy AG's Claim Of 'War' With Judges
By Rose Krebs
November 13, 2025, 4:45 PM EST
A group of former federal judges on Thursday condemned what they called "inflammatory remarks" last week by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche detailing the U.S. Department of Justice's "war" with...
To view the full article, register now.
FREE Access for 7 Days
Already a subscriber? Click here to view full article
I had a disciplinary matter that I brought on behalf of a corporate client, and I can say that the DC Bar Attorney/Client Arbitration Board did a wonderful job in aiding a resolution of the matter. I know the DC Bar has been active in enforcing the disciplinary rules against lawyers who are alleged to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Let the Todd Blanche violation of the Rules in his blanket assault on the judiciary be brought before the DC Bar which has very real enforcement power.
Though you don’t devote much argument to it here, Steve, it seems significant that district court grants of emergency relief against this Trump administration have also overwhelmingly been upheld by the circuit courts, typically explaining in detail how the lower court has not abused its discretion—a process that involves a number of additional judges of diverse backgrounds.
I’m a retired but still board certified attorney in civil appellate law. Whenever SCOTUS on its emergency docket summarily sets aside a district court order related to the current administration, I make a point search out and read the district court order and accompanying opinion. The opinions are, nearly without exception, thorough, thoughtful, well reasoned, and focused on the record developed in that proceeding. And they’re lengthy—sometimes over one hundred pages. Frankly, I’m amazed that the dc judges are able to draft such complete and complex opinions in the time crunch they’re under.
Did a single lawyer in attendance object, stand and turn their back, or leave? Was he given courteous applause or a standing ovation. Did the sponsoring organization make any public release about it not accepting the AAG’s remarks (see footnote below) and standing in defense of the judiciary and the Constitution and rejecting the declaration of war by a lawless administration? If not one objected or walked out, the attendees all deserve to be stripped of the privilege under which they are permitted to practice law!
FN: In 2023, Blanche was a registered Democrat in New York. In 2024, Blanche purchased a home in Palm Beach County, Florida and registered as a Republican.[9]
Haberman, Maggie; Protess, Ben; Feuer, Alan (April 4, 2024). "Trump's Trial Lawyer Gambled a Gilded Manhattan Career to Represent Him". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 26, 2024. (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche)
Thanks for a thoughtful and empirically-based discussion of the work of district judges in these highly-charged cases. It seems the independence of the federal judiciary and adherence to the rule of law is most evident in the district and circuit courts. Most importantly, these judges typically explain their rulings in lengthy opinions based on evidence.
If there is such a thing as “truth in advertising” – or is that an oxymoronic phrase? – or truth in a title that goes with a job, then perhaps some lawyers in the DOJ should be reclassified from “Prosecutor” to “Persecutor.” As for the habit of noting whether a judge (in the Supreme or a lower Court) was appointed by a Republican or Democratic President, would it not be justified (or even more undesirable) to note their religious affiliation as well? Among the 9 Supreme Court Justices 6 are Catholics, of whom only one was appointed by a Democratic President , one former Catholic, but now considered to be Anglican/Catholic, appointed by a Republican President, and 2 others (one Jewish, and one Protestant) both appointed by a Democratic President? Is the deceasing level of trust in the Supreme Court justified just as much by a perception that Justices’ decisions are unduly influenced by their religious beliefs as by political agendas, despite the Constitution’s wall of separation between church and state?
Anyone who's taken the trouble to read the thoroughly researched and cited, and exhaustively reasoned, decisions of these courts that are "at war" with Trump's DOJ knows precisely how ludicrous this claim is.
He's lucky the courts are being so circumspect in dealing with the buffoons who come before them with their meritless and candorless arguments. Most of them couldn't prevail in a simple dogbite case.
Yep. The district courts have been their own worst enemies with how pathetically they've responded to being openly lied to, and having their orders violated on the most absurd pretexts, over and over again. The lack of any consequence whatsoever for bad behavior invites further bad behavior.
In a sense, I get it-- the appeals courts and especially SCOTUS have repeatedly thrown them under the bus and assiduously worked to erase and cover up the administration's misconduct (cf. last Friday's ruling in the Alien Enemies Act case from the DC Circuit, which more or less acknowledged that a corrupt panel of its own judges had managed to entangle the case for eight months through the most transparent procedural BS) and so they're trying to make everything watertight. But it's not effective.
I find DAG Blanche’s comments to mirror the statements of disrespect attributed by whistleblowers to Judge Bove.
Sadly, “war’ is a buzzword for the administration: Dept of War; war on narco-terrorists; and ICE is at war with protesters, etc. By using the buzzword, the speakers purpose is to project power and control, surely not respect and civility. The time has long passed when those in power like Todd Blanche must do their part to restore civility to dialogue. The best leaders understand this; those who cannot think independently, lack the required courage and humility.
Professor Vladeck, you're right to highlight that this is "war." You're right to highlight this is a war that even was declared publicly by Trump and his supporters. But this is not a "war on judges."
In only a limited sense could judges could be seen as the target of Trump's war because, as James Madison highlighted in The Federalist No. 51, "Ambition" was meant "to counteract ambition. The interest of the man [who holds a position was meant to be] connected with the constitutional rights of the place." But, Madison emphasized, it was merely "a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
The far greater truth about our Constitution is stated in the Preamble, the Supremacy Clause and the relevant oaths of office. "We the People" (acting as the sovereign and as the supreme legislative authority) did "ordain and establish [our] Constitution" to "establish Justice" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves." To do so, the People established our Constitution as the paramount authority in "the supreme Law of the Land" and established that every public servant must "support [our] Constitution." The People vested limited power in the President solely to "preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" to "the best of [the President's] Ability."
If judges are fulfilling their duty to support our Constitution, then Trump's war is on our Constitution, so it is a war on us. But when a judge violates her oath to support our Constitution (like the Fifth Circuit judge who attacked you for opposing and exposing judges abusing their powers or usurping powers they were not granted), she doesn't deserve and should not have our support. As Article III emphasized, we must judge judges by their behavior: all federal "Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts" may "hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour." As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in The Federalist No. 79, only federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.”
In my opinion, Disciplinary Complaints should be filed by individual lawyers and legal organizations with the Bar Associations and federal courts against Todd Blanche for his knowing violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, Rules 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4,for lack of candor with the courts and in misleading the courts by virtue of his totally unsupported claim that district judges are intending to interfere with Trump's grand scheme of impending authoritarianism. Let the Bar Associations act on reports of false statements by Blanche. I am tired of lawyers intentionally and knowingly lying to courts, their opponents and the public. I practiced law for 52 years, and this intentional disregard for the truth has become ubiquitous and must be stopped, and who better to stop this behavior than bar associations, disciplinary organizations and the courts themselves.
As I noted before, the American Bar Association should be a leader in requiring lawyers to obey the Rules of Professional Conduct especially on issues involving high ranking Justice Department officials like Mr. Todd Blanche, president Trump's former personal attorney. Making wild and grossly inaccurate statements about 120 district court judges is beneath even Trump standards, if anyone can go that low. I will contact the former CEO of the ABA, a good friend of mine, to see if he can stimulate the ABA to take a position and prosecute offenders like Todd Blanche who is willing to defame 120 federal judges.
The comment is based on a common misperception, that the ABA licenses and disciplines lawyers. It does neither. The states license lawyers. Disciplinary authority therefore rests with the states that license them -- either with the state bar association (Wisconsin is an example) or the state supreme court (Illinois is an example). The ABA publishes Model Rules of Professional Conduct, true, but those are model rules for licensing states to adopt in whole or in part as each state sees fit. They aren't rules the ABA enforces. It has no enforcement power.
The broad recurring context of this administration is that state bar associations have preemptively declared themselves completely powerless to regulate federal-government attorneys practicing in their courts. Filing complaints is essentially pointless because they won't be adjudicated; they'll be swept under the rug on jurisdictional pretexts.
Mark off one more supposedly democratic institution that turned out to be a total sham the moment it was stress-tested.
I wonder why this isn't happening. Taking a long view, it would seem that Bar Associations would want to stand tall against violations!
Don't underestimate the tendency of most bar associations to shy away from rebuking their own unless the ruling of discipline is predicted to be a slam dunk and the violation is of a type the bar has tons of experience dealing with like improper use of client trust accounts. The bars run screaming from the very notion of dealing with unfamiliar issues and fact patterns. They freeze up when that happens and lose all initiative.
Not being in the law profession, I can't relate and would have thought that courage would have accompanied all of the knowledge held by those in the Bar Associations. I believe you, but I'm surprised.
Two structural elements of bar associations actually automatically constrain their ability to pursue disciplinary action against their own: (1) being an industry association dedicated first and foremost to protecting its members and their interests and not harming them, and (2) possessing significantly insufficient personnel and resources to be able to administer an "outside of the box" disciplinary proceeding against an extremely well-funded and politically powerful member of the bar who would be the subject of discipline.
FYI, the American College of Trial Lawyers—a highly respected invitation-only group of U.S. and Canadian trial lawyers—recently issued a the following press release in defense of trial judges and criticizing calls for their impeachment: https://www.actl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Senate-Judiciary-Subcommittee-Statement.pdf
Two words: Judge Cannon. Crickets from the right when she went rogue.
Thank you for this clear and well reasoned essay. Blanche is a stooge and toady whose bellicose statements should be condemned by any jurist or attorney (which I am not) who says they respect the rule of law.
I fear all of this is a prelude to interfering with the 2026 midterm elections, either to prevent Republican losses or overturn them after the election. Republicans have been and will continue to file a steady stream of court challenges to voters, election officials, voting and results and they want their supporters to assume that any adverse ruling is from an "activist judge" and not a legitimate application of the law. It's not their only reason for attacking judges, but it is one of if not their main goal.
Also, where the hell is Chief Justice Roberts in all of this? As the head of the federal judiciary, he should be repeatedly condemning attacks on federal judges and courts. Remaining silent is as much of a political act as saying something. It's also part of his job.
Expecting John Roberts to condemn these people is like expecting Roland Friesler to condemn Hitler's abuses of power in Nazi Germany. The guy is a card-carrying member of this political movement installed in office to do its bidding. Expecting him to behave like an impartial jurist is a fantasy.
LATEST NEWS
New York State Bar Association Denounces Attack on the Judiciary and Bar Associations
By Susan DeSantis
November 10, 2025
https://nysba.org/new-york-state-bar-association-denounces-attack-on-the-judiciary-and-bar-associations/?srsltid=AfmBOop4g5GNEzLYHG56kudBKpnG6uqgBCMaF-3vMo-A_IvjdbpJ2sgo
Coalition Rips Trump Deputy AG's Claim Of 'War' With Judges
By Rose Krebs
November 13, 2025, 4:45 PM EST
A group of former federal judges on Thursday condemned what they called "inflammatory remarks" last week by Deputy U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche detailing the U.S. Department of Justice's "war" with...
To view the full article, register now.
FREE Access for 7 Days
Already a subscriber? Click here to view full article
Where are the rest of the State Bar Associations?
I had a disciplinary matter that I brought on behalf of a corporate client, and I can say that the DC Bar Attorney/Client Arbitration Board did a wonderful job in aiding a resolution of the matter. I know the DC Bar has been active in enforcing the disciplinary rules against lawyers who are alleged to have violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. Let the Todd Blanche violation of the Rules in his blanket assault on the judiciary be brought before the DC Bar which has very real enforcement power.
And where is the American Bar Association on this problem? They should be taking the lead instead of staying in the background.
Though you don’t devote much argument to it here, Steve, it seems significant that district court grants of emergency relief against this Trump administration have also overwhelmingly been upheld by the circuit courts, typically explaining in detail how the lower court has not abused its discretion—a process that involves a number of additional judges of diverse backgrounds.
I’m a retired but still board certified attorney in civil appellate law. Whenever SCOTUS on its emergency docket summarily sets aside a district court order related to the current administration, I make a point search out and read the district court order and accompanying opinion. The opinions are, nearly without exception, thorough, thoughtful, well reasoned, and focused on the record developed in that proceeding. And they’re lengthy—sometimes over one hundred pages. Frankly, I’m amazed that the dc judges are able to draft such complete and complex opinions in the time crunch they’re under.
If any judges are being "activist," it is the right-wing judges on the Supreme Court.
Did a single lawyer in attendance object, stand and turn their back, or leave? Was he given courteous applause or a standing ovation. Did the sponsoring organization make any public release about it not accepting the AAG’s remarks (see footnote below) and standing in defense of the judiciary and the Constitution and rejecting the declaration of war by a lawless administration? If not one objected or walked out, the attendees all deserve to be stripped of the privilege under which they are permitted to practice law!
FN: In 2023, Blanche was a registered Democrat in New York. In 2024, Blanche purchased a home in Palm Beach County, Florida and registered as a Republican.[9]
Haberman, Maggie; Protess, Ben; Feuer, Alan (April 4, 2024). "Trump's Trial Lawyer Gambled a Gilded Manhattan Career to Represent Him". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 26, 2024. (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Blanche)
Thanks for a thoughtful and empirically-based discussion of the work of district judges in these highly-charged cases. It seems the independence of the federal judiciary and adherence to the rule of law is most evident in the district and circuit courts. Most importantly, these judges typically explain their rulings in lengthy opinions based on evidence.
If there is such a thing as “truth in advertising” – or is that an oxymoronic phrase? – or truth in a title that goes with a job, then perhaps some lawyers in the DOJ should be reclassified from “Prosecutor” to “Persecutor.” As for the habit of noting whether a judge (in the Supreme or a lower Court) was appointed by a Republican or Democratic President, would it not be justified (or even more undesirable) to note their religious affiliation as well? Among the 9 Supreme Court Justices 6 are Catholics, of whom only one was appointed by a Democratic President , one former Catholic, but now considered to be Anglican/Catholic, appointed by a Republican President, and 2 others (one Jewish, and one Protestant) both appointed by a Democratic President? Is the deceasing level of trust in the Supreme Court justified just as much by a perception that Justices’ decisions are unduly influenced by their religious beliefs as by political agendas, despite the Constitution’s wall of separation between church and state?