Ed Martin speaks at an event hosted by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., at the Capitol in Washington, June 13, 2023. (AP Photo/Amanda Andrade-Rhoades, File)
The onetime interim U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., and "weaponization" czar, serving as U.S. pardon attorney in the Trump administration, has been accused of violating ethical rules by threatening unconstitutional punishment against an elite law school and trying to shut down a bar investigation.
The eight-page filing from D.C. Bar disciplinary counsel Hamilton Fox to the D.C. Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility revealed that a retired judge in California complained about Ed Martin's February letter to Georgetown University Law Center and its dean, William Treanor.
According to the filing, Martin sent the letter while serving as interim U.S. attorney, claiming a "whistleblower had informed him that Georgetown Law was teaching and promoting 'DEI,'" or diversity, equity and inclusion, which the Trump administration has termed "illegal and immoral discrimination programs."
"Mr. Martin did not define 'DEI' or specify what ideas Georgetown Law was teaching or promoting that the government deemed unacceptable," the documents said. "Mr. Martin inquired whether Georgetown Law had eliminated all DEI from its school and curriculum and, if DEI was found in the school's courses or curriculum, would Georgetown Law move swiftly to remove it."
Fox stated that Martin, before even getting an answer and without explaining, hit Georgetown Law with "sanctions," vowing students would not have job opportunities.
"At this time," the letter said, "I have instructed our staff that no applicant for our prestigious fellows program, our summer internship, or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with Georgetown law school will be considered until this is resolved."
When the dean responded that the inquisition violated the First Amendment and amounted to an "attack on the University's mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution," Martin dug in deeper, according to the petition.
"Answers to these questions appear to bear directly on Georgetown University's status as a 501(c) nonprofit and its receipt of nearly $1 billion of federal tax money in recent years," Martin replied, according to the filing.
This exchange forms the basis of the first ethics charge against Martin, alleging that he "knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States[.]"
"Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of 'DEI,'" the petition summarized, alleging that Martin violated his oath of office.
The petition credited retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Phillip Argento with submitting the complaint that prompted the investigation, and additionally accused Martin of a panicked response.
Fox alleged that Martin sent a letter on March 31 to the judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals to complain about "Disciplinary Counsel's 'uneven behavior'" and sought a "face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward," even copying the White House Counsel "for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed."
Subsequently, Martin emailed the chief judge without looping in Fox, days ahead of an April 14 deadline for Martin to respond to the complaint, the documents continued.
"She informed him that the court could not permissively meet with him ex parte and that any concerns should be raised through the regular procedures established by the court to govern the disciplinary process," the petition added.
But the deadline was not met, leading Fox to counter with a motion to compel Martin's response. By May, Martin allegedly reached out to the chief judge again, this time in a letter asking that "you not only suspend Mr. Fox immediately to investigate his conduct, but also to dismiss the case against me because of his prejudicial conduct."
Martin eventually did formally respond in June, but now he has to contend with claims that he impermissibly communicated with the chief judge one-on-one and "engag[ed] in conduct that seriously interferes with the administration of justice."
The administration's response to the probe has been to discredit the D.C. Bar as a "partisan organization," given its various disciplinary proceedings against Trump-allied attorneys.
"The DC bar's attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization's agenda," the DOJ reportedly said.
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche went a step further on X, slamming the D.C. Bar as a "blatantly Democrat-run political organization."
"Thank God I'm not a member, and trust me, I never will be," he added.
News about the disciplinary counsel's petition also comes not long after Martin was sidelined from his "Weaponization Working Group" czar role and Blanche praised him for doing a "great job as Pardon Attorney." Notably, Blanche had issued that praise in the context of denying that there are misconduct investigations into Martin within the DOJ, into allegations of the unauthorized disclosure of grand jury material.
At the same time, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's DOJ has proposed a rule to grant her the authority to take over state bar investigations targeting current or former DOJ attorneys.
Follow Law&Crime:
Comments