Department of Justice Sues DC Bar Over Alleged Partisan Effort to Discipline Trump Administration Attorneys
-
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice is suing the DC Bar for engaging in a “blatantly partisan” effort to disbar and discipline current and former Trump administration attorneys, including former official Jeffrey Clark.
Compare 4 other versions
The FederalistThe Trump Department of Justice advanced its defense against leftist “barfare” on Wednesday by suing the Washington D.C. Bar disciplinary entities that spent years trying to ruin the lives and careers of their political enemies, including Trump-era DOJ official Jeffrey Clark.
Associated PressWASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is challenging efforts to sanction attorneys from the first and second Trump administrations, asserting in a lawsuit that the District of Columbia Bar is unfairly playing politics with the legal disciplinary process.
The HillJustice Department sues DC authorities over efforts to discipline Jeff Clark, Ed Martin The Justice Department (DOJ) is suing the Washington, D.C., Office of Disciplinary Counsel after it brought disciplinary proceedings against two of President Trump’s allies, Jeffrey Clark and Ed Martin. Clark, the former DOJ official who urged the department to intervene and open an investigation into Trump’s 2020 election loss in Georgia, was found last year…
PBS NewsHourJustice Department challenges efforts to sanction Trump administration lawyers in new lawsuit The Justice Department is challenging efforts to sanction attorneys from the first and second Trump administrations, asserting in a lawsuit that the District of Columbia Bar is unfairly playing politics with the legal disciplinary process.
-
District court judges in Washington, D.C., consistently ruled that the White House cannot enforce Trump’s executive orders against the firms of Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey and WilmerHale. Trump sanctioned firms with attorneys who had done work that Trump opposed or had been associated with prosecutors who investigated the Republican president.
Compare 4 other versions
ABC NewsFour judges previously determined the executive orders were unconstitutional. A District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals panel is set to hear arguments Thursday over the Trump administration's bid to reinstate executive orders that sought punishing sanctions against four elite law firms over their past representation or employment of perceived political foes of President Donald Trump.
The HillFederal appeals court probes Trump’s targeting of law firms A federal appeals court panel on Thursday scrutinized President Trump’s executive orders targeting several of the nation’s top law firms, which claim they were retaliated against for representing his political adversaries.   Sharp questions were asked of both the law firms and the Justice Department by a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that sought to determine whether Trump acted within…
Washington ExaminerA federal appeals court panel on Thursday questioned President Donald Trump‘s authority to restrict federal contract work from major law firms and a separate effort to revoke the security clearances from attorneys at these firms, whom the government says engaged in “unscrupulous” and partisan behavior.
ReutersUS appeals court to hear Trump's bid to punish major law firms - Reuters US appeals court to hear Trump's bid to punish major law firms Reuters
-
Paul Clement, who represented the law firms, said Trump impermissibly punished the firms because of their relationships with clients and attorneys who “raised the president’s ire.”
Compare 1 other version
Washington Examiner“The executive orders lay the president’s motives bare,” Clement said. He argued the orders were designed to “maximize punishment” against firms associated with Trump’s perceived enemies and warned the directives threaten the independence of the legal profession.
-
“President Trump is not beneath the law,” Kambli said. “He is entitled to the benefit of the Supreme Court and this court’s precedent on his authority to decide matters such as security clearance determinations and investigating anti-discrimination.”
Compare 1 other version
Washington ExaminerArguing for the Trump administration, Kambli maintained that the issue is nonjusticiable because the Constitution commits security clearance authority to the executive branch.
-
“The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive executive branch deliberations and target executive branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, a top Justice Department official, said in a statement.
Compare 1 other version
New York Post“The DC Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”
-
The DOJ points to Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler’s online activity, including his solicitation of “applications to join the Office of Disciplinary Counsel” on the same social media page, as an example of the “brazen partisan behavior” and “bias and poor judgment” that afflicts the ODC.
Compare 1 other version
New York PostMembers of the DC Bar named in the DOJ’s filing included Hamilton Fox and Jack Metzler, the latter of whom “posted dozens of ideological messages demonstrating his and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel’s bias and poor judgment,” Woodward wrote.
-
In an attempt to bolster its claims of bias in the disciplinary process, the Justice Department asserted that bar authorities had treated more leniently than Clark a former FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to doctoring an email during the investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign.
Compare 1 other version
The FederalistMuch like former Attorneys General William Barr, Jeff Sessions, and Michael Mukasey noted in their September 2025 amicus brief supporting Clark, the DOJ cites the ODC’s reinstatement of convicted felon and former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith while he was still on probation as proof that the DC Bar is captured by politicization.
6 details only one outlet reported
Independent claims that didn't surface elsewhere in our corpus. Treat as supplementary — not corroborated across outlets.
-
01 Breitbart The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division amended its lawsuit against Washington, DC Thursday, broadening it so as not only to target the District’s AR-15 ban but its suppressor ban as well.
-
02 Washington Examiner The back-to-back hearings before the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit centered on whether courts can review security clearance decisions allegedly motivated by retaliation or politics, or whether such decisions are effectively immune from judicial scrutiny under presidential national security powers.
-
03 Associated Press “The executive orders here strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients,” he said. “Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals.”
-
04 New York Post Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed a complaint in federal court Wednesday alleging that the DC Office of Disciplinary Counsel and the DC Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility were “punishing” Clark and “[w]eaponizing state bar discipline” against others.
-
05 The Federalist The 48-page complaint outlines in detail how D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), and the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility weaponized the legal licensing punitive process to unlawfully “chill the
-
06 ABC News Four separate district court judges had previously granted permanent restraining orders sought by the four law firms -- Perkins Coie, Susman Godfrey, Wilmer Hale and Jenner & Block -- after determining the EOs were unconstitutional.
Fact Corroboration
Which sources independently confirm the same facts. Hover a claim to see its sources, or a source to see what it corroborates.
Coverage by Perspective
Source Similarity
Connections show how similarly each outlet covered this story. Thicker lines = more similar framing.
Sources (9)
- abc
- federalist
- nypost
- reuters
- thehill
- breitbart
- ap
- washexaminer
- pbs