The Trump administration notched another victory this week when U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington granted a motion to dismiss a case brought by five organizations to stop the cancellation of more than 360 grant awards by the Justice Department. However, in reaching this relatively straightforward conclusion, Judge Mehta opted to follow a pattern set by other judges in adding his own personal commentary on the wisdom of the policy change.
Judge Mehta easily found that he lacked jurisdiction over such questions. However, he then vented his own personal views on the policy:
“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities and individuals vulnerable to crime and violence. But displeasure and sympathy are not enough in a court of law.”
Actually, neither the court’s displeasure nor sympathy should be part of the decision of a court of law. With all due respect to Judge Mehta, some of us find it shameful that judges are using these opinions to express their political viewpoints.
I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary, particularly among the judges of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee who previously presided over Trump’s election interference case, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from that case after she made highly controversial statements about Trump from the bench. In a sentencing hearing of a Jan. 6 rioter in 2022, Chutkan said that the rioters “were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man — not to the Constitution.” She added then, “[i]t’s a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time and, when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Later, Chutkan decided to use the bench to amplify her own views of the pardons and Jan. 6. Like Judge Mehta, she conceded that she could not block the pardons but used the cases to express her personal disagreements with President Trump and his policies. She proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
Judge Mehta has also been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and a bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol.
I fail to see how being assigned this case gives a judge license to hold forth on their own views of the merits of these grants or the implications of their suspension. He is tasked with deciding the legal questions in the case, which he did so correctly.
More of the same. It is why we can never vote in a Democrat president because they are no longer liberal, but progressive fascists.
It is clear that the founders were correct to be very concerned about a rogue Judicial Branch. It has come true. The non-bias arbiter is now fully biased and bases many of their rulings on that bias. Therefore, they should not be Judges they should be pundits. It is time the Congress step up and slap these Federal Districts down by either impeachment proceeding or disbanding the Districts these Judges serve.
Another win. Lets here it for the 1st.
Appeals court overturns right-wing influencer’s conviction for spreading 2016 election falsehoods
Judge Chutkan conveniently forgot about Biden’s brownshirts when she invoked the “hallowed tradition” of peaceful transitions of power.
My understanding is federal judges are not explicitly prohibited from making political commentary in judicial opinions, but there are strong norms, traditions, and ethical expectations that discourage it. Of course judges may criticize laws, policies, or officials in the context of the case. But in their dissenting or concurring opinions, while judges are allowed to write passionately or pointedly about broader societal or political implications, they should still frame this within legal analysis.
The constitution is supposed put sufficient checks on all 3 branches, not just the “angel-less” men and women in the Executive and Legislative branches. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
What can Congress do to establish clearly defined boundaries on judicial opinions? Leaving this necessary check up to the Judicial branch is like asking the fox to be on his best behavior while he guards the henhouse.
Article 3 of the Constitution clear states that judges are to adjudicate the laws per the Constitution not give their opinions! The Constitution states nothing about judges shutting off their mouths about what THEY think should be done!!
Are judges prohibited from making political commentary or not? Given the judicial activism that is on the rise, what currently prevents political activism within the judicial branch? Code of Ethics, honor, what? Clearly something more needs to be done.
Judges are not legally prohibited from making political commentary. But it is out of place, it’s simply not their job or their expertise, and it corrupts the legal opinion by suggesting something other than the law went into the decision (the present case is a rare exception, where the judge rules one way but spouts off politically in the opposite direction).
In the same way, a United States Senator or House Member can write a legal opinion about how a case should come out, but it has no authority since that person is not a judge ruling in the case. Judges are tempted to spout off with their legal opinions, since the media will pick that up, but like Judge Mehta, when they do they only demonstrate that the need to be toilet trained.
Dictum inaProprium
His sole purpose was to send a message to leftist judge shoppers that he’s available. Shameful and much more harmful than the rescission of any grant.
The message sent is he’s unfit.
Mehta’s action raise substantial questions about his impartiality and fitness to administer justice. At minimum, he should be subject to disqualification from any future litigation involving the Trump administration or the executive branch. If his disqualification or the lack thereof were to be appealed, perhaps SCOTUS could use it to send a message to other judges.
If nothing else, the smart ones would learn to bite their lip.
There wasn’t justice to be done. Only the law applied. Apparently the other party didn’t call upon the mercy of the court and beg. Mehtas comment renders to I would have shown mercy if asked. Looney
“Defendants’ rescinding of these awards is shameful. It is likely to harm communities . . .”
Leaving aside the propriety of a judge propagandizing, about 140 of those awards were for DEI programs.
I’d call riding the culture of tribalism beneficial to the culture.
*. What is Mehta’s motive for his political speech from the bench? Is it to scold the admin in the laws application?
It’s concerning when the judiciary eats away at powers.
THE CONGRESS etc need to Clean Sweep the DC Court Sewer of Radical Left Wing very biased DEM and I hate Trump Judges. They need to install Judges who rule on law/Constitution etc not political woke beliefs. Enough of the Washington Sewer/Elites
When is the Supreme Court of the United States and/or the people of the United States going to slap down these judges that are engaging in political grandstanding from the bench. These judges are abusing their power and position. These kinds of pure political statements should be stricken from the records and the Judges formally penalized.
Are these judges identified to be DemoRats infectedwith the Trump Derangement Syndrome, and thus incapable of impartial judgements or opinions??
You should be reporting that information for context of the source i think.
At least he ruled according to the law, but the superfluous commentary is a bad look. Judges have no clue how to weigh competing policy objectives and they are not accountable at the ballot box. That is for the political branches – executive and legislative. The political branches have the necessary tools and the ability to weigh competing concerns, and they are politically accountable.
All of the above is Law School 101. Judge Mehta needs to go back to law school and learn the basics.
OMFK-
I think maybe you are being a bit too generous when you correctly observe that, “the superfluous commentary is a bad look.” Viewing the comment as part of the pattern it is, there is a very reasonable case to be made that this judge (and apparently a good bit of the USDC, W.D.C. bench) at a minimum gives the impression that he is unable or unwilling to act in a fair and unbiased manner.
-g
so basically the judge IS bias and should be REMOVED!
“Actually, neither the court’s displeasure nor sympathy should be part of the decision of a court of law. With all due respect to Judge Mehta, some of us find it shameful that judges are using these opinions to express their political viewpoints.”
**************************************
It’s pure liberal tribalism coupled with job insecurity: “I have to rule this way. I don’t want to. I also need to keep my day job.” So here’s your bone to prove my radical bona fides.
Except a judge with lifetime tenure doesn’t even have that excuse. A more likely reason is social congeniality at elite cocktail parties.
“A more likely reason is social congeniality at elite cocktail parties.”
So, Mehta is an apprentice John Roberts?
They used leaks, a fake Russia story, a fake impeachment and social media censorship last time and none of it worked. This time they came up with the judicial resistance and it is working to slow down Trump, but so far he is slowly making headway against the swamp.
The judicial resistance needs to be handled and handled more quickly than it has been up to this point. Even after the SCOTUS ruled against national injunctions we are still getting a few decisions that buck the Court. But Trump needs to tread carefully because these jurist provocateurs’ are trying to goad him into ignoring a court order so the Dems/media/Hollywood/social media can all scream (in unison) IT’S THE END OF DEMOCRACY. But frankly it is tempting to ignore unconstitutional orders from rogue courts.
All these liberal judges, up to and including Justice Jackson, have done more to undermine the judiciary in 6 months than did 40 years of conservative complaining about “activists.”
“All these liberal judges, up to and including Justice Jackson, have done more to undermine the judiciary in 6 months than did 40 years of conservative complaining about “activists.””
“A lie can travel around the world and back again while the truth is lacing up its boots.”—Mark Twain
I’m concerned as people are falling at the skills of compartmentalization.
It seems everybody wants their 10 minutes of fame and notoriety. I do not have a problem with that just keep it within the bounds. Work places, in this case judges, should not espouse their personal opinions.
No need to respect a political hack. He obviously was not appointed for his knowledge of the law. He was appointed for his fidelity to the progressive catechism.
The Justice from Washington. Enough said. These are not serious people, and it’s no surprise they put him on the bench. Any criticism of his behavior is entirely warranted, someone so lacking in self-control, if not objectivity, is the wrong person for that job.