March 7, 2025

Friday, March 7, 2025. Annette’s Roundup for Democracy.

Trump’s D.C. Attorney threatened Georgetown Law School. The Georgetown Dean answered him.

D.C. U.S. attorney tells Georgetown he won’t hire from any school with ‘DEI’

Interim D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin demanded that the dean of Georgetown Law School end all diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at the school, asserting in a letter that his office will not consider hiring anyone affiliated with a university that utilizes DEI.


Trump has nominated Ed Martin to be the permanent U.S. attorney in Washington.

The warning was delivered in a letter dated Feb. 17 to William M. Treanor, a constitutional law scholar and one of the longest-serving deans of the largest law school in the nation’s capital. The first letter was misaddressed, but it was re-sent Monday.

“At this time, you should know that no applicant for our fellows program, our summer internship, or employment in our office who is a student or affiliated with a law school or university that continues to teach and utilize DEI will be considered,” Martin wrote in the two-page letter.
Martin added two questions: “First, have you eliminated all DEI from your school and its curriculum? Second, if DEI is found in your courses or teaching in any way, will you move swiftly to remove it?”

A spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office said there was no immediate comment. Martin’s letter was first reported and posted by the Post Millennial, a right-wing website, and confirmed to The Washington Post by two people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private correspondence.

On Thursday, after this story first published, he responded to Martin’s letter, writing, Treanor responded to Martin, suggesting his threat would run afoul of the Constitution.

“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.
Treanor, who has been named as one of the most influential legal educators in the country, announced in December that he will step down and rejoin the faculty full-time on June 30 after serving 15 years in the dean’s role.

Spokespeople for other universities with law schools in the District either declined to comment or could not immediately be reached Wednesday night.

The D.C. U.S. attorney’s office employs about 350 prosecutors and hundreds more paralegals and staff, and has been a longtime entry point and training ground for lawyers who seek to serve in the federal government. Its alumni have served among the highest levels of federal agencies, including the Justice Department. Georgetown Law School’s alumni include more than four dozen sitting federal judges and Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome H. Powell.


Martin’s letter came after the Trump administration’s Department of Education told U.S. schools and universities on Feb. 18 to eliminate diversity initiatives and “racial preferences” in admissions, financial aid, hiring or other areas within two weeks or risk losing federal money. A subsequent document last week softened that stance, stating that by law the federal government cannot dictate curriculum. The department said its enforcement policies would not infringe on teachers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and noted that federal law bars the department from “exercising control over the content of school curricula.”

Separately, a federal judge has temporarily barred enforcement against large universities and publicly traded companies from a Trump executive order to cancel federal contracts that include components of DEI.


Art Coleman, the deputy assistant secretary for civil rights in the Clinton administration’s Education Department, called Martin’s letter an “overreach” and a continuation of the administration’s efforts to brand DEI as “intrinsically suspect.”


“Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. Federal law does not ban universities from teaching lessons about diversity, equity and inclusion, he said. By calling DEI “unacceptable,” he said, Martin was trying to impose his policy worldview on the school.

It was not immediately clear why Martin, a devout Catholic and lawyer, apparently singled out Georgetown, which is the nation’s oldest Catholic and Jesuit university with a prestigious law school.


But in previous public comments, Martin has cast the school as anti-Trump. He has pointed in particular to the role one member of its law school faculty played in organizing a bipartisan group of prominent legal, governmental and media players to prepare in 2020 for the aftermath of a potentially contested presidential election, and a law school center that employs former U.S. officials who have criticized Trump.

“HOYAGATE is a bigger deal than anyone knows,” Martin posted on X last March, referencing an article by the conservative right-wing American Spectator titled “#Hoyagate: Georgetown Law is Vatican of Trump Hatred.” The piece argued the university’s $1 billion in federal grant, loan and research fees over six years should be cut.


Georgetown “is really the locus of the sort of anti-, what Trump, anti-Republican activity for the last five years, it looks like,” Martin said on his podcast at the time. (The Washington Post).

The threatening letter from Trump’s attorney in D.C.

The response from the Georgetown Dean.

One more thing.

Like Trump’s Attorney General Ed Martin (see above), Pam Bondi thinks she can bully the end of diversity - especially at the American Bar Association.

Pam Bondi’s letter to the ABA.

The ABA answers.

Now the Democratic Senators have stepped up too.

Senators Call for Investigation of Acting U.S. Attorney in Washington

Democrats wrote to the governing body of the D.C. Bar that Ed Martin, President Trump’s nominee for one of the most important U.S. attorney’s offices, “abused” his power by threatening opponents.

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are asking the group that governs the legal bar in the District of Columbia to investigate Ed Martin, the interim U.S. attorney in the capital, saying that he had “abused” prosecutorial power by threatening his political opponents.

In a letter to the D.C. Bar’s disciplinary counsel on Thursday, the senators, led by Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the committee’s top Democrat, also accused Mr. Martin of violating professional standards by refusing to recuse himself from a case involving a Capitol rioter he privately represented and dismissing charges against the man.

Mr. Martin, a Missouri Republican who has used social media to threaten critics of President Trump and Elon Musk, has upended one of the most important U.S. attorney’s offices in the country. He has purged nonpolitical career staff involved in the investigations of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack and at times directly interceded in prosecutorial decision-making.

This week, Mr. Martin took yet another provocative step — sending a letter to the dean of Georgetown University’s law school threatening to investigate the school if it did not scrub its policies and curriculum of diversity and inclusion initiatives, a move made public on Thursday after the Democrats’ letter was sent.

“Mr. Martin has abused his position in several ways,” Mr. Durbin wrote, referring his complaint to the bar group, the body that recommended the disbarment of Rudolph W. Giuliani over false claims he made in lawsuits after the 2020 election.

The D.C. Bar is a mandatory body, to which every lawyer practicing in Washington, D.C., is required to register and which oversees disciplinary actions.

“Mr. Martin’s conduct not only speaks to his fitness as a lawyer,” added Mr. Durbin, who signed the letter with nine other Democrats, but “his activities are part of a broader course of conduct by President Trump and his allies to undermine the traditional independence of Department of Justice investigations and prosecutions and the rule of law.”

A spokesman for Mr. Martin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Trump has nominated Mr. Martin, who also promoted his false claims about the 2020 election, to be the permanent U.S. attorney in Washington. But Mr. Martin’s targeting of opponents, while in sync with the president’s demands for retribution, has alienated some Senate Republicans and could complicate his chances of confirmation. A date for his confirmation hearings has not been set.

That said, the Bondis leave no stone unturned too.

Attorney General’s Brother Seeks to Lead D.C. Bar Association.

Bradley Bondi, brother of Pam Bondi, is running for president of the D.C. Bar, which may consider complaints against political appointees in the Justice Department. (New York Times)

But We don’t either. The fight will go on. Democracy and Diversity will win.

---

There may be reasons why 10 Democratic Representatives joined Republicans in censuring Al Green, but I can’t think of any.

Maybe we should ask them why.

Shame on 10 Dems who voted to censure Al Green. Ami Bera -CA Ed Case- Hawaii Jim Costa-CA. Laura Gillen- NY Jim Himes -CT Chrissy Houlahan- PA Marcy Kaptur- Ohio Jared Moskowitz - FLA Marie Gluesenkamp Perez- Washington Tom Suozzi - NY The inappropriate response to Trump ws applause & respect https://Rep.to

— Mia Farrow 🇺🇦🇨🇦🇪🇺 (@miafarrow.bsky.social) 2025-03-06T18:56:13.955Z

These are the Democrat Cowards on Bluesky who voted to censure Al Green @algreen.house.gov

CA06 @bera.house.gov
CT04 @jahimes.bsky.social
FL23 @repmoskowitz.bsky.social
NY03 @tomsuozzi.bsky.social
OH09 @repmarcykaptur.bsky.social
PA06 @houlahan.house.gov
WA03 @gluesenkampperez.house.gov

---

The Judges may save us. Amir Ali did yesterday.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against Trump.

Supreme Court denies Trump request to block $2 billion foreign-aid payment - SCOTUSblog

A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid reimbursements for work that has already been done.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the court noted that the Feb. 26 deadline for the government to make the payments had already passed. It instructed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance” with the temporary restraining order that Ali has entered in the case, paying attention to how feasible it is for the government to comply with those timelines.

Ali is expected to hold a hearing on the aid groups’ motion for a preliminary injunction – which, if granted, would suspend the freeze on foreign-assistance funding going forward – on Thursday, March 6. This means that the dispute could return to the Supreme Court as an emergency appeal again soon.

Four of the court’s conservative justices would have granted the government’s request to put the order on hold. Justice Samuel Alito, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, described himself as “stunned” by the ruling, calling it “a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”

The brief unsigned order came six days after Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused Ali’s Feb. 25 order, which had ordered the agencies to pay contractors and grant recipients by 11:59 p.m. on Feb. 26 for work that had already been done before he issued a Feb. 13 temporary restraining order that prohibited the State Department and USAID from suspending foreign-aid payments.

In an executive order last month, President Donald Trump ordered a halt to the distribution of foreign-aid funds so that federal agencies can ensure that those funds are only disbursed in ways that are “fully aligned with” Trump’s foreign policy. Following that order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a freeze on all foreign-aid programs funded by the State Department and the USAID.

Several groups that receive or have members that receive foreign-aid funds challenged the pause in federal court in Washington, D.C. They argued that the funding freeze violated both the federal law governing administrative agencies and the Constitution.

Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris came to the Supreme Court on Wednesday night, asking the justices to quickly put Ali’s Feb. 25 order on hold before the deadline for the State Department and USAID to make the payments and then ultimately to lift it. She argued that Ali’s order infringed on the executive branch’s power to make decisions about foreign aid and “stands on the brink of placing USAID into a court-run receivership.” And although she agreed that the government “is committed to paying legitimate claims for work that was properly completed,” the government could not “pay arbitrarily determined demands on an arbitrary timeline of” Ali’s choosing.

A few hours later, Roberts – who handles emergency appeals from Washington, D.C. – granted Harris’s request to temporarily pause Ali’s order before the midnight deadline.

Foreign-aid recipients on Friday urged the Supreme Court to quickly lift the Roberts order. In a 21-page brief, they told the justices that “the government’s actions bring their very existence—and the existence of fellow foreign-aid partners—to the brink.” Their work, they said, “advances U.S. interests abroad and improves—and, in many cases, literally saves—the lives of millions of people across the globe.”

The foreign-aid recipients emphasized that, as a general rule, temporary restraining orders like the one Ali issued on Feb. 13 are not appealable. But the government has not even asked the Supreme Court to lift the TRO, they observed. Instead, it has asked the justices to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order directing the government to comply with the TRO and pay for work that had already been completed – something that is even less amenable to an appeal than a TRO. Moreover, they noted, because the government has not appealed the temporary restraining order, it would still have to comply with it even if the court were to lift the Feb. 25 order.

In a one-paragraph order on Wednesday, the court emphasized that Harris’s request to lift the Feb. 25 order “does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow” the Feb. 13 temporary restraining order.

Alito’s dissent acknowledged Ali’s “frustration with the Government,” and that the aid groups had broached “serious concerns about nonpayment for completed work.” But the court’s denial of the Trump administration’s request to lift Ali’s Feb. 25 order, he contended, “is, quite simply, too extreme a response. A federal court,” he suggested, “has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”

Yesterday Judge Amir Ali accepted SCOTUS’s challenge.

Trump administration must pay nearly $2B in USAID and State Department debts, judge rules | PBS News

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday gave the Trump administration until Monday to pay nearly $2 billion in debts to partners of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department, thawing the administration’s six-week funding freeze on all foreign assistance.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled in favor of nonprofit groups and businesses that sued over the funding freeze, which has forced organizations around the world to slash services and lay off thousands of workers.

Ali issued his order a day after a divided Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s bid to freeze funding that flowed through USAID. The high court instructed Ali to clarify what the government must do to comply with his earlier order requiring the quick release of funds for work that had already been done. (PBS)

One more thing too.

Another case. Another important Trump loss.

---

Next week, there will be a meeting on Ukraine in Saudi Arabia.

This week, in Europe, this is happening.👇

Looks as if Ukraine’s Zelenskyy will have some cards.

Stay tuned.

---