Justice Department pardon attorney Ed Martin — an advocate for Jan. 6 defendants and former head of the Trump administration’s “weaponization working group” — faces a formal disciplinary proceeding over allegations of threats against the First Amendment rights of Georgetown Law and improper communications with a judge.
Washington, D.C., Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III filed a two-count complaint against Martin that involves threats he made last year, when he was interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, in a letter to the dean of Georgetown University Law Center, as well as his communications with a judge in a bid to get Fox fired.
“Mr. Martin 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,” Fox wrote in connection with Martin’s threats against Georgetown Law.
The complaint is the start of a lengthy disciplinary proceeding involving the D.C. Bar and the Board on Professional Responsibility, which could take years to adjudicate and involves several steps, but it could ultimately result in consequences for Martin’s law license. CNN earlier reported on the disciplinary proceedings against Martin.
In a letter last year, Martin complained to Georgetown Law's dean about what he said were the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and said he would discriminate against job applicants affiliated with Georgetown Law.
Fox wrote in his complaint that while he was acting "in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government," Martin "used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI.’ He demanded that Georgetown Law relinquish its free speech and religious rights in order to continue to obtain a benefit, employment opportunities for its students.”
In a letter responding to Martin last March, Georgetown Law's then-dean, William Treanor, emphasized the university’s Catholic and Jesuit mission, reminding Martin that the First Amendment “guarantees that the government cannot direct what Georgetown and its faculty teach and how to teach it.”
“Given the First Amendment’s protection of a university’s freedom to determine its own curriculum and how to deliver it, the constitutional violation behind this threat is clear, as is the attack on the University’s mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution,” Treanor wrote.
The second charge alleges that Martin, after he received an initial communication from Fox about the matter last March, sent a letter to the chief judge and senior judges of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to complain and copied the White House counsel.
The chief judge responded that she would not meet with Martin "ex parte," or outside the presence of the opposing party, and said Martin should follow normal procedures, according to the complaint.
Martin later sent another letter asking the chief judge to “suspend Mr. Fox immediately to investigate his conduct” and dismiss the case against him. The chief judge once again reiterated that he should comply with the court’s procedures.
A Justice Department spokesperson issued a statement in response to the complaint against Martin that did not address its substance but alleged that the D.C. Bar had a "partisan” agenda. The statement characterized the complaint as an “attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump” and said the D.C. Bar had refused “to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys.”
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche wrote Tuesday on X that the "DC Bar is such a blatantly Democrat-run political organization," adding, "Thank God I’m not a member, and trust me, I never will be."
