On Friday, August 22, 2025, the Society for the Rule of Law published an opinion piece by Noah Bookbinder and Gregg Nunziata, highlighting concerns about the Trump administration’s actions toward the federal judiciary.
Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and former counsel for Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee from 2005 to 2013, co-authored the piece with Nunziata, the Society’s executive director and former counsel for Republicans on the same committee from 2005 to 2008, where he served as chief nominations counsel starting in 2006.
The article, titled “The Endgame of Trump’s War on the Judiciary,” asserts that since President Trump’s return to office, federal courts, particularly lower courts, have acted as a critical check on executive overreach by rejecting unconstitutional executive orders and addressing government non-compliance with judicial rulings.
However, the authors claim that Trump, his administration, and congressional allies have responded by targeting federal judges with inflammatory language, including terms like “radical Left lunatic,” “troublemaker and agitator,” and “radical rogue judges.” They have also accused the judiciary of staging a “judicial coup” and called for the impeachment of judges over unfavorable rulings.
The piece notes that in March, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly criticized the use of impeachment threats in response to judicial decisions, emphasizing that the appellate process is the appropriate mechanism for addressing disagreements.
The authors further highlight actions by Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ), which in July filed a lawsuit against all sitting federal judges in Maryland. Additionally, the DOJ escalated its approach by filing a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge James Boasberg, who in March ordered the administration to halt deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a controversial wartime statute—an order the DOJ allegedly defied.
According to the authors, the Trump administration’s filing of two misconduct complaints against federal judges in its first six months is unprecedented, as prior administrations have not taken such actions. They argue that these moves resemble tactics seen in other countries, such as Poland, where the ruling party in 2017 implemented measures to control the judiciary, including laws penalizing judges for criticizing reforms. In response, Polish judges worked to inform the public about threats to judicial independence, a stance the authors say U.S. judges are similarly adopting by continuing their work despite the administration’s actions.
The article underscores the importance of judicial ethics rules in maintaining public trust and the judiciary’s role in democracy. It states that while judges from both parties have occasionally used political language, violating codes of conduct, the complaint against Boasberg lacks evidence of unethical behavior. The authors describe the complaint as an attempt at judicial intimidation rather than a legitimate grievance, which they say should be addressed through the appellate process.
Bookbinder and Nunziata warn that undermining public confidence in the judiciary could embolden the administration to defy court orders further and increase threats to judges’ safety. They call for Americans across political lines to reject efforts to control the courts, emphasizing the judiciary’s role as a safeguard against abuse of power.
The piece concludes by urging the administration to use the appellate process for legal challenges rather than attacking judges, framing such actions as an assault on the judiciary’s legitimacy.
