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.
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.
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.
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.”
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)
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.
The current tendency to discuss which president appointed a judge is grossly overdone (and grossly overdone here, too, frankly) for a couple of reasons.
One, the vast majority of cases district judges hear are relatively straightforward civil and criminal matters. And even if they're not straightforward (a complex antitrust case, for example), the cases typically have no ideological component. A judge's ideological bent (i.e., "right" vs. "left") has no effect at all on how the judge decides those matters. None.
Two, whatever their ideology (and here I assume purely for the sake of argument that every judge has one, something I don't actually believe), judges take their oaths seriously. They swear to apply the law faithfully and to rule "without fear or favor," and whether their decisions are wrong or right, that's what they do.
Making a big deal out of whether a Republican or a Democrat appointed a particular federal judge only contributes to our corrosive environment in which people wrongly believe that every judicial decision is also a political one.
As always, you write a very moving and well reasoned piece that is comprehensible even to those not trained in the law, such as myself.
The lower court judges have often been quoted at some length on sub stack, and I often find their writings to be courageous, eloquent, and moving. It feels to me like good lawyers and fair judges are the one consistent barrier against those in the government who would like to invent new laws to serve themselves.
Is there something that members of the public can do that would be constructive in this fight? How can we effectively protect the rights of judges to be evaluated on the merits of their rulings?
Some of Blanche's comments about being at "war" with activist judges are around 55:00 - 56:45 in the video that Steve links to.
Blanche later said that they're going to handle complaints about DOJ lawyers internally to take "activist bars" out of the picture. He complained particularly about the D.C. bar, which he apparently thinks is biased against conservatives.
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
> eroding public faith, at least among those who take Bondi and Blanche seriously, in the lower federal courts.
Unfortunately, it will reach far beyond those people, and will ultimately reach the common citizen that has no real interest in politics. These people decide issues by either direct observation or gut feel, and the drum beat of Blanche's attack will echo around in their media until they "feel" that there is something wrong with how the lower courts operate.
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.
" And yet, you’d be hard-pressed to find any conservative groups, right-of-center law professors, or other right-wing commentators publicly criticizing these remarks or the broader attacks on lower federal courts emanating from this administration. I don’t say this lightly, but that is to their profound (and growing) discredit."
Their hypocrisy is long-lasting. One person concerned about "both sides" (lower court judges & Trump) going too far back in time was deeply concerned about the Democrats passing a messy form of the Affordable Care Act. He, for some strange reason, didn't blame Republicans for even providing the senators with one vote to break the filibuster and pass a cleaned-up version.
The true believers [in the spirit of Prof. Vladeck, I will add "mostly"] are a lost cause. The so-called reasonable opposition is ultimately why we are on the road to perdition.
Blanche is the poster boy for an ambulance chaser. He is a disgrace to our profession, as is Bondi. My former legal ethics professor, now a retired County Superior Court judge, has to be apoplectic about this Justice Department.
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.
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.
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.”
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)
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.
The current tendency to discuss which president appointed a judge is grossly overdone (and grossly overdone here, too, frankly) for a couple of reasons.
One, the vast majority of cases district judges hear are relatively straightforward civil and criminal matters. And even if they're not straightforward (a complex antitrust case, for example), the cases typically have no ideological component. A judge's ideological bent (i.e., "right" vs. "left") has no effect at all on how the judge decides those matters. None.
Two, whatever their ideology (and here I assume purely for the sake of argument that every judge has one, something I don't actually believe), judges take their oaths seriously. They swear to apply the law faithfully and to rule "without fear or favor," and whether their decisions are wrong or right, that's what they do.
Making a big deal out of whether a Republican or a Democrat appointed a particular federal judge only contributes to our corrosive environment in which people wrongly believe that every judicial decision is also a political one.
As always, you write a very moving and well reasoned piece that is comprehensible even to those not trained in the law, such as myself.
The lower court judges have often been quoted at some length on sub stack, and I often find their writings to be courageous, eloquent, and moving. It feels to me like good lawyers and fair judges are the one consistent barrier against those in the government who would like to invent new laws to serve themselves.
Is there something that members of the public can do that would be constructive in this fight? How can we effectively protect the rights of judges to be evaluated on the merits of their rulings?
Lawyers Call On High Court To Stop 'Capitulating' To Trump
By Katie Buehler ·
Law360 (November 16, 2025, 12:56 PM EST) --
https://www.law360.com/articles/2411616/lawyers-call-on-high-court-to-stop-capitulating-to-trump
Too small a turnout!
If Mr Blanche is concerned about the court rulings, perhaps the DOJ attorneys could learn to prepare better arguments.
Blaming judges for losses and accusing them of being political does not improve the work of the DOJ.
Some of Blanche's comments about being at "war" with activist judges are around 55:00 - 56:45 in the video that Steve links to.
Blanche later said that they're going to handle complaints about DOJ lawyers internally to take "activist bars" out of the picture. He complained particularly about the D.C. bar, which he apparently thinks is biased against conservatives.
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?
> eroding public faith, at least among those who take Bondi and Blanche seriously, in the lower federal courts.
Unfortunately, it will reach far beyond those people, and will ultimately reach the common citizen that has no real interest in politics. These people decide issues by either direct observation or gut feel, and the drum beat of Blanche's attack will echo around in their media until they "feel" that there is something wrong with how the lower courts operate.
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.
" And yet, you’d be hard-pressed to find any conservative groups, right-of-center law professors, or other right-wing commentators publicly criticizing these remarks or the broader attacks on lower federal courts emanating from this administration. I don’t say this lightly, but that is to their profound (and growing) discredit."
Their hypocrisy is long-lasting. One person concerned about "both sides" (lower court judges & Trump) going too far back in time was deeply concerned about the Democrats passing a messy form of the Affordable Care Act. He, for some strange reason, didn't blame Republicans for even providing the senators with one vote to break the filibuster and pass a cleaned-up version.
The true believers [in the spirit of Prof. Vladeck, I will add "mostly"] are a lost cause. The so-called reasonable opposition is ultimately why we are on the road to perdition.
Blanche is the poster boy for an ambulance chaser. He is a disgrace to our profession, as is Bondi. My former legal ethics professor, now a retired County Superior Court judge, has to be apoplectic about this Justice Department.