Mike Davis, an advocate closely aligned with Donald Trump, has filed a formal complaint against US District Judge Reggie Walton, who recently made critical remarks about the former president during a CNN appearance. Walton, a district judge in Washington, DC, openly criticized Trump in the context of Trump’s disparaging comments towards the judge presiding over his “hush money” case in Manhattan.
Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, a group advocating for conservative judicial appointments, labeled Walton’s televised comments as “judicial misconduct.” He contends that such behavior from a federal judge, especially one involving public commentary on a pending criminal case against a political figure, breaches the judicial code of conduct which mandates judges to uphold public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity.
In his 13-page complaint addressed to Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Davis seeks a reprimand for Walton and aims to highlight to other judges, particularly those in Washington, DC, the importance of maintaining judicial neutrality and avoiding political commentary.
During his CNN appearance, Walton responded to Trump’s public criticism of Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, describing the negative impact of Trump’s remarks on judges and their families. Walton shared his own experiences with threats and emphasized the importance of the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law free from intimidation.
Davis disputes Walton’s interpretation of Trump’s comments as threats, arguing instead that Trump was expressing concerns over potential judicial bias. He underscores that Trump did not incite violence or illegal protests against the judge or his family, thus not constituting a direct threat.
Furthermore, Davis points out Walton’s history of public criticism towards Trump, citing previous comments where Walton called Trump a “charlatan” concerned only with power. He argues that such statements, particularly when made by a judge involved in cases related to Trump and the Capitol riot, could unduly influence public perception and potential jury pools.
Davis’s complaint raises questions about the appropriate boundaries for judicial commentary on political figures and ongoing legal cases. He warns of the dangerous precedent set by judges making partisan statements, suggesting it undermines the impartiality required of the judiciary. The complaint comes amid broader debates over the intersection of law, politics, and the media, highlighting the tensions between free speech and judicial ethics.