Can I just ask a pesky little point-of-order question about AG Pam Bondi's social media post from July 28th, as captioned above? Specifically, I'd like to ask whether the comments claimed to be from District Court Chief Hudge James Boasberg can be interpreted to be "public" given what we know of the forum in which they were made?
As I understand it from reporting, Judge Boasberg's remarks were made on March 11th this year, at a twice-yearly meeting of the US Judicial Conference, which is a non-public, policy-making body for federal courts.
As a lay-person, it seems clear to me that not only would this venue be absolutely considered non-public and "private", but that the entire point of having a Judicial Conference in the first place would be to create a forum in which federal judges could raise concerns about observed conduct from government counsel before and during trial.
For example... let's suppose that a judge had observed lawyers for the EPA making repeated misrepresentations in their court, or that counsel for the EPA had repeatedly been found to have witheld evidence requested in discovery. It seems entirely reasonable for a judge to ask, "Is this an issue local to my court, or do I have a small piece of a more widespread problem?"
It seems not only reasonable, but right and proper, to raise this question... because it could be indicative of a broader practice among the EPA's legal team, for example as a result of a central directive. Such conduct could perhaps be discreetly addressed if the Conference were to reach out to the EPA's Lead Counsel and inform them that the conduct had been observed and that all federal judges would henceforth be "on the lookout" for more examples. It's a way of addressing the problem without humiliating the government in public.
It also seems likely that AG Bondi as well aware of this, which means that it is highly likely her complaint will go nowhere.
Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that this was a performative move by AG Bondi, either for her Audience of One, or as red meat for the MAGA base. It seems a shame, then, that there is no Anti-SLAPP Law that can be brought to bear against the government.
Thanks to Law and Chaos and Kel for keeping the heat on this.
Just make the negative inference-the attachment does not exist, so DOJ lied in its complaint. Whoever signed the letter should face bar proceedings.
Can I just ask a pesky little point-of-order question about AG Pam Bondi's social media post from July 28th, as captioned above? Specifically, I'd like to ask whether the comments claimed to be from District Court Chief Hudge James Boasberg can be interpreted to be "public" given what we know of the forum in which they were made?
As I understand it from reporting, Judge Boasberg's remarks were made on March 11th this year, at a twice-yearly meeting of the US Judicial Conference, which is a non-public, policy-making body for federal courts.
As a lay-person, it seems clear to me that not only would this venue be absolutely considered non-public and "private", but that the entire point of having a Judicial Conference in the first place would be to create a forum in which federal judges could raise concerns about observed conduct from government counsel before and during trial.
For example... let's suppose that a judge had observed lawyers for the EPA making repeated misrepresentations in their court, or that counsel for the EPA had repeatedly been found to have witheld evidence requested in discovery. It seems entirely reasonable for a judge to ask, "Is this an issue local to my court, or do I have a small piece of a more widespread problem?"
It seems not only reasonable, but right and proper, to raise this question... because it could be indicative of a broader practice among the EPA's legal team, for example as a result of a central directive. Such conduct could perhaps be discreetly addressed if the Conference were to reach out to the EPA's Lead Counsel and inform them that the conduct had been observed and that all federal judges would henceforth be "on the lookout" for more examples. It's a way of addressing the problem without humiliating the government in public.
It also seems likely that AG Bondi as well aware of this, which means that it is highly likely her complaint will go nowhere.
Which leads us to the inevitable conclusion that this was a performative move by AG Bondi, either for her Audience of One, or as red meat for the MAGA base. It seems a shame, then, that there is no Anti-SLAPP Law that can be brought to bear against the government.
Sigh.