Connect with us

News

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Published

on

Ed Martin, outspoken Justice Department lawyer, is formally accused of ethical violations | CNN Politics

Ed Martin, an outspoken Trump administration official, is facing attorney discipline proceedings in Washington, DC, for a letter he sent to Georgetown Law about its diversity programs, the district’s professional conduct investigator announced on Tuesday.

Martin is formally accused of violating his ethical codes as an attorney for telling Georgetown Law’s dean last year that his Justice Department office wouldn’t hire students because of the school’s diversity, inclusion and equity initiatives programs, according to the filing from Hamilton Fox, the disciplinary counsel for DC who acts as a quasi-prosecutor on attorney discipline matters.

Unlike unsolicited complaints, Fox’s formal disciplinary complaint kicks off professional conduct proceedings for Martin in which he will need to respond and could be sanctioned or ultimately lose his law license.

Fox’s announcement on Tuesday marks the first major bar discipline proceeding against a high-profile administration official or attorney supporting President Donald Trump during Trump’s second term. Several Trump lawyers faced disciplinary proceedings after the efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election, including Rudy Giuliani, who lost his law license.

“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,’” Fox wrote in the complaint. “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.”

Advertisement

Martin was removed from the top prosecutor job in DC after senators made clear he would not be confirmed to the role, but has remained at the Justice Department in several roles, including as pardon attorney.

“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.

Martin is being represented by a Justice Department attorney, a source told CNN.

A spokesperson for DOJ attacked Fox’s complaint. “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,” DOJ said.

Martin had sent the letter to Georgetown Law while serving temporarily as US attorney for DC, a prominent Justice Department position, and told the school his federal prosecutors’ office wouldn’t hire Georgetown’s law school students. It came at a time when the Trump administration was beginning to crack down on universities for their DEI efforts.

Advertisement

In his letter, Martin claimed a whistleblower told him that the school was teaching and promoting DEI.

Martin also violated attorney ethics rules by contacting judges of the DC court directly, Fox alleged, rather than going through official channels, once he was informed he was under investigation for his professional conduct. The DC Court of Appeals ultimately signs off on attorney discipline findings.

Early last year, Fox’s office had formally asked Martin to respond to a complaint it received by a retired judge regarding the Georgetown letter.

Martin instead wrote to the judges on the DC court complaining about Fox.

“In that letter, he stated that he would not be responding to Disciplinary Counsel’s inquiry, complained about Disciplinary Counsel’s ‘uneven behavior,’ and requested a ‘face-to-face meeting with all of you to discuss this matter and find a way forward,’” Fox wrote.

Advertisement

“He copied the White House Counsel ‘for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed,’” Fox said.

The top judge in the DC courts told Martin the court wouldn’t meet with him about the disciplinary matter and that he would need to follow procedure.

With Fox’s complaint, there will now be several steps ahead of bar discipline authorities looking at Martin’s action, and Fox didn’t specify how Martin should be reprimanded or punished if the discipline boards and the court ultimately determine he violated his ethical codes.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on Tuesday morning.

In recent days, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced her office would have a more powerful role in reviewing attorney discipline complaints against Justice Department attorneys, potentially setting up an approach that could keep the department at odds with the bar on behalf of DOJ attorneys facing their own individual disciplinary proceedings.

Advertisement

CNN’s Paula Reid contributed to this report.

News

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

Published

on

A day after Alito’s testy response to Sotomayor’s dissent, court says it was a ‘misunderstanding’

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor (seated left) and Justice Samuel Alito (seated second from right).

Alex Wong/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Alex Wong/Getty Images

As the Supreme Court heads into the announcement of its final and hugely important opinions next week, there are reverberations from this week’s announcements, and Justice Samuel Alito’s public rebuke of his colleague Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

On Thursday, Justice Alito summarized from the bench three very big opinions he authored for the court’s six justice conservative majority. Alito, unlike most of his colleagues, doesn’t spend much time on these summaries. And it is rare that a justice has three big opinions to announce, but it is almost the end of the term, and there are a lot of big cases still outstanding.

The first case he announced came and went. Alito then moved on to a second case, this one tests whether migrants may apply for asylum in the U.S. by going to one of several ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexican border, and presenting themselves for admission. This entails presenting documents that persuade an asylum officer that applicants’ fear of persecution in their home country is credible enough to allow them to enter the U.S. while their asylum application is processed. Alito’s opinion ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s policy of refusing all such applicants by blocking them at the border. It was a policy also followed at one time by the Obama administration until it was blocked by the lower courts.

Advertisement

After Alito finished his summary of the opinion, he paused, at which point Justice Sotomayor read a summary of her contrary views in dissent. When she finished, however, Justice Alito did not move on to the announcement of his third opinion. Instead, he did something that nobody in the press corps ever remembers happening before. Looking much as if he had just bitten into a lemon, Alito said, “There is much that I would have added to my bench statement had I known there would be a dissent read.” And he then went on to a short extemporaneous rebuttal.

Continue Reading

News

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

Published

on

“It’s blood money”: Family of exonerated man in Texas yogurt shop murders speaks out after settlement

The widow and the daughter of Maurice Pierce, one of the four men wrongfully accused in the 1991 Texas yogurt shop murders, have confirmed they signed a multimillion-dollar settlement with the city of Austin.

Kimberli and Marisa Pierce spoke with correspondent Erin Moriarty in a new episode of the podcast “48 Hours: Case by Case.” Moriarty has reported on the yogurt shop murders for over 30 years. 

Maurice Pierce’s widow Kimberli made clear that their priority has never been financial compensation. “It’s blood money for us. He died for this money,” Kimberli Pierce said. “It’s about the reform and the changes that need to happen, not only in Austin, but apparently across the country.”

They also went into great detail about what they believe happened when Maurice Pierce was shot and killed by police in 2010. 

Advertisement

Maurice Pierce was one of four men, along with Michael Scott, Robert Springsteen and Forrest Welborn, who were wrongfully accused in the murders of four teenage girls in Austin on Dec. 6, 1991. Eliza Thomas, Amy Ayers, and sisters Jennifer and Sarah Harbison were tied up, shot and left inside the yogurt shop as it was set ablaze. 

The four men were exonerated in February after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the killings. The city of Austin subsequently offered a $35 million settlement. Because Maurice Pierce died in 2010, his share of $10 million will go to Kimberli and Marisa Pierce.

Eight days after the killings, 16-year-old Maurice Pierce was arrested at a mall, carrying a .22, the same caliber handgun connected to the crime. Kimberli Pierce said police told Maurice Pierce that his gun was the murder weapon. He responded by mentioning his friend Forrest Welborn. Maurice Pierce was then wired up and sent to speak with Welborn, but investigators ultimately determined that Welborn and the others knew nothing about the murders, and no charges were filed at that time.

Marisa Pierce has said there was no evidence when her father was questioned, “only a detective and a narrative, a narrative so completely false. It feels evil.”

From left, Maurice Pierce, Forrest Welborn, Michael Scott and Robert Springsteen were exonerated in February 2026 after investigators linked another man, Robert Eugene Brashers, to the December 1991 killings of four teenage girls in an Austin, Texas, yogurt shop. 

Advertisement

CBS News/AP


Nearly eight years later, in 1999, all four men were arrested after Scott and Springsteen confessed to the murders. They later recanted, saying they had been coerced. Springsteen and Scott were tried and convicted, but later those convictions were overturned on constitutional grounds. A subsequent DNA test excluded all four men. Maurice Pierce was never convicted but spent three years in jail before his release in 2003. 

Kimberli Pierce said her husband came home a hardened man. She believes police continued to harass Maurice and their family after his release. In 2010, Maurice Pierce was stopped for a routine traffic stop, fled on foot, and was shot and killed by an Austin police officer who said Pierce had stabbed him with a knife. 

Marisa and Kimberli Pierce told “48 Hours” that they intend to review the circumstances surrounding the night of Maurice Pierce’s death. Marisa Pierce revealed in new, emotional detail that she was on the phone with her father at the time. She believes he panicked and was only trying to get away, not to hurt anyone. She described her father’s last breaths: “And in those last moments, he had just said I’m sorry, I don’t think you’re gonna see me again, and I love you.” 

Advertisement

“48 Hours” reached out to the Austin Police Department about the Pierces’ allegations of harassment and their questions about Maurice Pierce’s death in 2010. The police department said they had no additional comment.

For the Pierce family, the settlement is a starting point, not an end point. They have put forward seven proposed reforms they hope the city of Austin will approve, including appointing a child advocate whenever a minor is questioned, prohibiting deceptive interrogation tactics, educating juveniles about their rights and establishing accountability measures to address tunnel vision in police investigations.

In a statement shared with “48 Hours,” the Pierces wrote: “Real justice is not only about acknowledging harm after the fact but about creating safeguards that prevent future families from enduring the same pain.”  

Continue Reading

News

The Maine Town That Actually Wants a Data Center

Published

on

This year, Maine nearly became the first state to pass a statewide moratorium on new data centers. But before the law could take effect, supporters of an A.I. data center project in the small town of Jay rallied to fight the ban — and won. So why do residents there want one? We traveled to Jay to find out.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending