WASHINGTON (LN) — The Justice Department filed a federal complaint accusing D.C. disciplinary authorities of improperly regulating the official actions of federal attorneys and targeting officials based on political disagreement.
The lawsuit, filed by Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, names D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility as defendants.
The filing advances President Donald J. Trump’s Executive Order Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government and a related Presidential Memorandum on Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.
Specifically, the complaint seeks to nullify the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark based on internal deliberations relating to potential fraud in the 2020 Presidential Election. That case remains the subject of litigation nearly six years later.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement that the D.C. Bar has "long acted as a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes. No more."
"President Trump promised to put an end to the weaponization of the legal process, and today’s lawsuit against the D.C. Bar makes good on that promise," Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said. "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."
The complaint follows a Justice Department statement of interest filed last week in support of former interim United States Attorney Ed Martin, who is seeking to have the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of him heard in a neutral federal tribunal.
The filing also cites a recent recognition by three former Attorneys General that the D.C. Bar’s efforts to discipline Justice Department attorneys for making recommendations, factual assertions, and providing legal advice during confidential internal agency deliberations on law enforcement and sensitive public policy are "improper and constitutionally impermissible."