SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
judiciary
Dozens of Former Judges Join Call for Senate to Reject Bove's Judicial Nomination
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
Jul 15, 2025
With two days to go until the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote on advancing the judicial nomination of President Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove, more than 75 former federal and state judges wrote to lawmakers to demand they reject the "deeply inappropriate" appointment.
Confirming Bove to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit would not only "compromise the integrity of the courts" and "set a dangerous precedent" that "personal fealty rather than constitutional duty" can secure judicial power, said the judges, but would also elevate someone who has allegedly "plotted to violate court orders," according to a recent whistleblower report.
The judges noted that the whistleblower, former Department of Justice lawyer Erez Reuveni, has offered to testify under oath and has provided the committee with "compelling evidence" that Bove told DOJ staffers to "ignore" any court orders that challenged Trump's mass deportation operation—yet the Republican-controlled panel has not invited Reuveni to speak to lawmakers.
On Tuesday, committee Chair Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) rejected a request to hold additional hearings on Bove's nomination before voting, saying they were "unnecessary."
"The Senate has a duty to hear that testimony," said the former judges, including Republican-nominated former circuit judges J. Michael Luttig, Timothy Lewis, and Paul Michel.
The judges wrote that "Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position."
The letter is only the latest push to stop senators from confirming Bove, currently the principal associate deputy attorney general at the DOJ. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 civil society organizations, wrote to senators last month, saying Bove does not meet the "basic requirements" to be a federal judge, including being "fair-minded, well-qualified, and committed to civil and human rights."
Like the Leadership Conference, the judges on Tuesday pointed to Bove's views on and conduct regarding the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol, which the DOJ official "refuses to condemn." Bove also investigated and fired dozens of FBI agents who had been involved in probing the attacks, which were aimed at stopping lawmakers from certifying Trump's 2020 election loss.
"It is disqualifying alone that Mr. Bove targeted or terminated Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel and career DOJ prosecutors for honorably investigating violent criminals who assaulted police officers and intended to murder members of Congress and our nation's vice president on January 6, 2021," wrote the judges.
They also pointed to Bove's role in dropping corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams, which prompted the resignation of several disgusted staff attorneys, and his record of belittling and abusing staffers when he was a federal prosecutor in New York's Southern District—a pattern that made him the subject of an email from defense attorneys who expressed concern about Bove's "power plays" and "professionalism."
"Mr. Bove's egregious record of mistreating law enforcement officers, abusing power, and disregarding the law itself disqualifies him for this position," wrote the lawyers.
Gregg Nunziata, executive director at the Society for the Rule of Law, said the "remarkable" letter demonstrated how "the case against Mr. Bove's confirmation" is "about fundamental unfitness for the judicial role."
The Senate committee is set to vote on Bove's nomination on Thursday, and Republicans on the panel are expected to approve the appointment—even though Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) previously said he would not support nominations of people who refused to condemn the January 6 attacks. After the committee vote, Bove would need to be confirmed by the full chamber.
On a questionnaire given to him by the Senate as part of his confirmation process, Bove said "the characterization of the events on January 6 is a matter of significant political debate," and declined to comment on his views.
On the same document, Bove did not rule out Trump's potential run for a third term—which would violate the U.S. Constitution's 22nd Amendment.
While the judges outlined Bove's unfitness for the lifetime appeals court seat, journalist Lydia Polgreen noted that as the committee moved toward a likely confirmation, condemnation should also be aimed at members of the Democratic Party who "caved to anti-Muslim smears" last year and failed to confirm veteran lawyer Adeel Mangi for the seat on the 3rd Circuit—leaving the spot open for Trump's former personal attorney.
As Common Dreams reported last year, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether Mangi condemned the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel in October 2023. They also accused Mangi of antisemitism due to his membership on the advisory board for the Rutgers Center for Security, Race, and Rights, which hosted speakers who—like more than half of U.S. adults currently—were critical of Israel.
The "monthslong onslaught of baseless, disgusting attacks on Mangi," as HuffPost reporter Jennifer Bendery called them, were successful, and convinced Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) to vote against the "highly qualified, widely endorsed, successful litigator."
"The history of trying to fill this powerful court seat," said Bendery, "is just as infuriating as where it could be headed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
First Confirmed Judge of Second Trump Term Called a 'Direct Threat' to Fundamental Freedoms
"Whitney Hermandorfer has a clear record of putting her loyalty to Donald Trump over the Constitution," said one watchdog.
Jul 15, 2025
Civil rights organizations and anti-corruption groups voiced alarm Monday after the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate confirmed the first federal judge of President Donald Trump's second term, granting 38-year-old Whitney Hermandorfer a lifetime position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
"Her limited legal career shows a demonstrated hostility towards the protection of civil and human rights—including a disturbing and unacceptable record on reproductive rights, LGBTQ equality, birthright citizenship, labor and employment, environmental protections, and the expansion of executive power—which should be disqualifying for any judicial nominee," Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said following Hermandorfer's confirmation via a party-line vote.
Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog group Accountable.US, said that "Hermandorfer has a clear record of putting her loyalty to Donald Trump over the Constitution, and her confirmation is a direct threat to Americans' fundamental freedoms."
"She has stood in lockstep with the president as he pursued blatantly unconstitutional actions and worked to expand executive power," Ciccone added. "Given that, it's no wonder Trump picked her for a lifetime appointment to the bench."
"Hermandorfer's lack of experience, extreme agenda, history of advocacy for the wealthy and powerful, and loyalty to Trump make her an ominous bellwether of what's to come for our courts."
Opponents of Hermandorfer's confirmation pointed specifically to her record as director of the Tennessee attorney general's Strategic Litigation Unit, where she argued in support of the state's near-total abortion ban and filed amicus briefs backing Trump administration actions, including its effort to end birthright citizenship through executive order and seize control of independent federal agencies.
In a letter to senators ahead of Monday's vote, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights also highlighted Hermandorfer's history of "undermining union and labor protections."
"As a researcher for the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, she frequently wrote about supporting the corporatization of public education and busting teachers unions as a way for principals and superintendents to make 'necessary' changes," the group observed. "Ms. Hermandorfer has submitted amicus briefs in many cases that undermine fair labor practices and the right of workers to unionize. She submitted a brief on behalf of Tennessee to the U.S. Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case brought in 2024 after several employees at Starbucks were fired after attempting to unionize."
Rachel Rossi, president of Alliance for Justice, warned Monday that "Hermandorfer's lack of experience, extreme agenda, history of advocacy for the wealthy and powerful, and loyalty to Trump make her an ominous bellwether of what's to come for our courts."
In addition to becoming the first judicial confirmation of Trump's second White House term, Hermandorfer is the first federal judge pick in years who was not formally vetted by the American Bar Association (ABA). In May, Attorney General Pam Bondi restricted the ABA's access to judicial nominees, heightening concerns about the president's efforts to fill court vacancies with inexperienced ideologues and sycophants.
Hermandorfer is part of a slate of far-right judicial nominees that includes Trump loyalist Emil Bove, who is currently the principal associate deputy attorney general. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to consider Bove's nomination to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on Thursday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Supreme Court Has Effectively Resuscitated Dred Scott
By choosing to ban nationwide injunctions in response to a case challenging Trump’s order to end birthright citizenship, the court’s conservative majority put all of our rights at risk.
Jul 02, 2025
The 14th Amendment guarantees that all children born in the United States are citizens. It aimed to undo the notorious Dred Scott ruling, which held that some people born here—Black people, to be precise, free and formerly enslaved—nevertheless were not citizens. As you’ll recall, just hours into his term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship. The order was, and remains, unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court chose this case, out of all the possible cases, to strip judges of a key power used to stop illegal actions.
Instead of ruling on the merits in Trump v. CASA, the justices chose to rule on the legality of universal injunctions, among the strongest tools that lower courts use to block flagrantly unconstitutional policies like these from taking effect while cases play out. These injunctions grant relief not only to the person who brought a lawsuit, but to all affected by the ruling. Instead of every soon-to-be parent affected by the order having to bring a lawsuit to secure citizenship for their baby, only one litigant would have to obtain a universal injunction—guaranteeing relief from an unconstitutional order for all. The six justices of the conservative supermajority decided that such rulings go beyond the power of federal courts when they’re not necessary to give the plaintiffs themselves full protection of the law.
While this Supreme Court may be frozen in 1789, we must think anew and act to ensure the protection of birthright citizenship and so many other constitutionally recognized rights.
By allowing Trump’s order to partially take effect in 30 days absent further action by the lower courts, the court has effectively resuscitated Dred Scott, at least for some people, at least for now.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned, “No right is safe in the new legal regime the court creates. Today, the threat is to birthright citizenship. Tomorrow, a different administration may try to seize firearms from law-abiding citizens or prevent people of certain faiths from gathering to worship.”
We at the Brennan Center are still analyzing the ruling. It’s vague at key points. In some respects, it is as great a gift to executive overreach as last summer’s ruling on presidential immunity. On the other hand, alternative avenues to obtain nationwide relief from illegal conduct remain.
Let me share several thoughts.
First, and most obviously: This is one more example of the Supreme Court enabling executive overreach at a time when checks and balances are profoundly strained.
These nationwide injunctions pose complex issues. I have warned about the damage a single judge can do with a gavel and a grudge. Nationwide injunctions blocked key Biden administration initiatives, such as on student loan relief and climate change, and many of Trump’s actions in his first term. Oddly, the Supreme Court had never before ruled on the practice, despite many opportunities to do so during the Biden administration. One could have imagined a decision now that set out sharp limits. Instead, with this decision, these justices have once again gone much further than the case required.
Second, the court purports to give litigants other ways to broadly challenge illegal actions—but these may be flimsy, even sneaky. People can file a class action lawsuit, for example. Maybe. I was a class action plaintiffs lawyer before I came to work at the Brennan Center. Those lawsuits are cumbersome, expensive, and slow, and they must overcome barriers erected by very conservative judges (and the business lobbyists who backed them for their jobs).
Then there is the question of which judges have had their power stripped. The ruling seems to apply only to lower court judges... but does it? For example, if the administration were to defy the Supreme Court, would the court itself still have the legal authority to enforce its own orders to protect everyone affected? That would, after all, require a universal injunction.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion, which sought to reassure: Of course the Supreme Court could still take bold action when needed. Some read that as reassuring. Others note that he is just one justice. There’s a reason this appears in a concurring opinion. Kavanaugh may not have been able to bring any of his supermajority colleagues along with him. Even if true, as Ruth Marcus explained in The New Yorker, that means the court “sided with Donald Trump over the judiciary.”
All of which brings us to the third point: The courts, alone, will not save us. In banning universal injunctions, the Supreme Court relied on an originalist interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789. (Sotomayor noted that it amounted to “freezing in amber the precise remedies available.”)
Congress, in other words, wrote the law being interpreted—and could write a new law to clarify what powers federal judges hold when confronted by executive branch lawlessness.
Presidents of both parties have pushed to expand their power, though none as brazenly as Trump. And Congress has settled into torpor, failing over and over to perform its constitutional role.
After this period of institutional demolition will come a moment of reform and renewal. When it does, we should ensure that remedies make it possible to hold lawless presidents accountable, along with addressing issues such as campaign finance and voting rights.
While this Supreme Court may be frozen in 1789, we must think anew and act to ensure the protection of birthright citizenship and so many other constitutionally recognized rights. In the meantime, we must give our full support to efforts to hold this administration accountable through the courts, using any and every tool that remains.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular