The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Jack Goldsmith on the Edward Martin Nomination
"The Case for Non-Confirmation"
Over at his Executive Functions substack, Jack Goldsmith urges the United States Senate to refuse to confirm Edward Martin for U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. From the post:
Martin even in his temporary role has proven to be the most openly politicizing and weaponizing figure in the most politicized and weaponizing department in our history. If the Senate confirms him, it will be directly responsible for his foreseeably abusive actions as U.S. attorney. . . .
Martin had a long career in Missouri politics but has no prior prosecutorial experience. He popped up on the D.C. radar screen when he tweeted at 2:53 p.m. on Jan. 6, 2021, that he was "at the Capitol right now" and added that there was a "[r]owdy crowd but nothing out of hand."
Martin later represented Jan. 6 defendants. Yet after his appointment as interim U.S. attorney on Jan. 20, 2025, he dismissed charges against his own client, thus serving simultaneously as prosecutor and defense counsel in probable violation of his ethical duties.
Martin's other abusive activities as acting U.S. attorney are well known. Here is a partial list:
- He fired career prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 cases.
- He threatened to "chase … to the end of the Earth" not just people who had acted unlawfully, but "simply unethically"—a threat that is beyond his authority to make and is itself unethical.
- He has made "a practice of sending threatening letters announcing vague 'inquiries' into figures he feels have crossed Trump in some way, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.)."
- He is groundlessly using his office to question whether president Biden issued lawful pardons in his final days in office.
- He threatened Georgetown Law School over its DEI program without citing any legal principles.
- He conceives of his role as U.S. attorney primarily as one of "Trump's lawyers" fighting to "protect his leadership," as he made clear in connection with the case brought against the government by the Associated Press.
- He has engaged in other conduct unbecoming of a federal prosecutor on social media.
It is unclear whether Martin acted in these instances with pure political goals; or whether he does not understand the role of a U.S. attorney; or whether he simply cannot meet basic professional standards. Any of these explanations is disqualifying; all three could be true. . . .
I cannot think of any U.S. attorney nominee in my lifetime who embodies [Justice Robert Jackson's worries about federal prosecutors] more, and who is more likely to abuse federal prosecutorial power, than Edward Martin. And this wolf comes as a wolf. Martin has wielded prosecutorial power recklessly and openly while serving in a temporary role, during his Senate audition period; his actions will surely grow much more menacing if he is confirmed.
As they say, read the whole thing.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
He sounds like a bad guy, but with the saving grace of having a big mouth so he can make his badness obvious. A slicker, smoother prosecutor would probably be more at risk of being confirmed while being no less dangerous.
As opposed to, say, Rachel Rollins?
"I cannot think of any U.S. attorney nominee in my lifetime who embodies [Justice Robert Jackson's worries about federal prosecutors] more,"
As opposed to, say Rachel Rollins?
She was confirmed 51-50, along straight party lines with Heels Up breaking the tie.
Correct, he appears to be worse than Rachel Rollins. (Not that “better than one of Biden’s worst nominees would be much of a case for confirming him.)
Oh well then. If Biden nominated terrible people as US attorneys, I guess it's okay.
Professor Goldsmith -- a Republican legal luminary (head of the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel in the Bush II administration) -- makes a persuasive case that the Senate should reject Ed Martin's nomination.
Let's see whether the Senate has the testicular fortitude to step up to the plate.
Meh,
If the Senate was going to confirm Pete Hegseth, a recovering drug addict, to a critically-important role like Sec. of Defense, then I see no reason at all to believe that it would suddenly develop either a backbone or a conscience regarding a US Attorney nominee.
The chance of either happening is not zero. But it's probably pretty close to zero.
I would be surprised if the Senate declines to confirm Mr. Martin, but I don't think that the confirmation of a philandering drunk to head the Department of Defense is comparable to confirming the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia.
Pete Hegseth does not have the power to investigate and prosecute Republican members of Congress if they get crosswise with the Trump administration.
not guilty — Pete Hegseth also does not have legitimate power to order American troops to gun down American protestors in the streets. Do you take that as assurance he would not do it?
Someone should gun you down for using double negatives without a license
Well, I hope they won’t shoot better than you don’t read.
I don’t think you’re not right about that, nicht wahr?
"Pete Hegseth does not have the power to investigate and prosecute Republican members of Congress if they get crosswise with the Trump administration."
Neither did Mayor Pete have a similar power to investigate and prosecute Republicans who Team Biden didn't like.
The solution is to deal with prosecutorial abuse!!!
You've seen the Dems do it, you fear that the Republicans will do it -- how about dealing with IT and not who is/may be doing it?!?
WTF are you talking about?
The number of philandering drunks (or sober philanderers or faithful drunks) nominated for or elected to high office is a pretty large number. Not actually seen as disqualifying for most of our history.
(There are many other better reasons he should not have been nominated or approved, of course)
It kept John Tower from being confirmed as Sec DOD, and was only one of various reasons why Hegseth should have been rejected.
Not Guilty
If that happens, let's see if the party has the testicular fortitude to also step up to the plate and primary out the schmucks who voted against him...
Bush 43 was no more representative of the GOP today than I am representative of anorexic lesbian gymnasts.
Bush 43 and 41 were more representative of the Republican party than you. As were... Lincoln, Grant, T. Roosevelt, Taft, Coolidge, Hoover, Eisenhower, and Reagan. Today’s Republican party is in name only. It is the Trump party, more a reflection of the party of Democrats Andrew Jackson and William Jennings Bryant.
That RINO Lincoln? That embarassment to the Republican Party? That guy? Why even mention him and Republicans in the same sentence?
Seems like we have more of that famous projection going on. Supporters of lawfare thugs now try to accuse others of lawfare. Get a new schtick. In fact, what really bothers democrats is being held accountable for their abuses.
Kerr recites reasons this Senate will rush to confirm.
The challenge demanding action is to imagine a judiciary packed with Martin-clone new judges. What method, Professor Kerr, are advocates on behalf of American Constitutionalism to use to prevent that now, or to undo it after it happens?
Or, alternatively, and more pointedly, Professor Kerr, can you propose any course of action outside the usual constraints of legal comity to prevent such a plainly impending breakdown in this nation's system of justice? It looks like political actions restricted within usual bounds will not get the job done. Do you think that justifies going outside usual bounds, or would doing that remain unthinkable, no matter what the loss?
Could you be more specific?
Not yet. I prefer to wait to see Professor Kerr's response, if he is willing to give it. I especially want to see if he is willing to give it. Professor Kerr has for years ranked near the top of my respect for VC bloggers. It will disappoint me if he shrinks from answering, as so many others with legal training have been doing on this blog when confronted with similar questions.
Stephen, regarding your first comment, it sounds like you have some specific examples of possible steps "outside the usual bounds" in mind. I don't know what that means. Would you mind listing a few examples of what you're thinking of?
Re your second comment, I have had the impression that my reactions and views have long been deeply disappointing to you. So I assume that if I am "near the top of [your] respect for VC bloggers," that is quite a low bar.
Professor Kerr, you may have missed my repeated expressions of admiration along the way. Yes, I have had respectful disagreements with some of your legal points; disagreements I tend more to be cautious about because they are disagreements with you. I sometimes offer disagreements rhetorically, not infrequently with a hope to be persuaded out of them. You have helped me in that way more than you know.
I have near-zero confidence in my own insight into modern law, of course. You might have noted that I comment with more confidence on legal issues featuring academic historical implications. Academic history is an area where I have enjoyed limited but high quality professional training.
The notion of originalism comes up so often that it multiplies opportunities (and sometimes increases a sense of urgency) to comment from an academical historical perspective, as opposed to a legal history perspective. I take those almost as poles apart.
Thus, I struggle along trying to reconcile legal critiques which challenge me, with historical reasoning I was trained to understand better, but have never practiced professionally. I wish there were others here better equipped to take over that kind of commentary, and let me sit on the sidelines, but such others are not in evidence here.
However, I do not recall even one instance where I thought your contributions required more than slight criticism on an academic historical basis. To my mind, that sets your legal professionalism apart, at least in VC company, and elevates it in my esteem.
Now about my "outside the bounds," remark. I consider this nation to be struggling through a full-blown constitutional crisis, with existential implications for American constitutionalism as it has been understood heretofore. Do you share that impression, or do you judge the situation otherwise? If it is the latter, then by what means do you expect the present general impression of constitutional chaos to be resolved? Or do you suppose I misjudge the general impression?
If you will kindly answer those questions, it will provide me guidance I need to frame an appropriate answer to your own first question. Yes, I do have an idea or two in mind, but also doubts about their practicality, especially their legal practicality. Your answers to the questions just above will help me at the outset.
OK's reply suggests not much of a desire not to engage including a dig.
For instance, there really doesn't need to be a definition [which would open up unnecessary side debates] added to "outside of bounds" to set forth some general principles.
As to "outside the usual constraints of legal comity," I don't think Orin Kerr might be the best person for that. He seems more like someone who would work within the usual constraints.
Stephen, would you mind listing a few examples of what you're thinking of, as I had asked before? To quote you above, "It will disappoint me if he shrinks from answering."
What it could mean, Professor Kerr, is that when the fever eventually breaks and people see the monstrousness of what they had done, we will need to have Nuremburg/Unamerican Committee once again to weed out all these Russian assets and traitors. Including judges.
You know how when you have a corrupt district attorney? Well, all cases, whether legit or not, are then permanently tainted. Same with all the politicians/judges/justices put in place by a Russian saboteur
You follow hobie's point about the Nuremburg/Unamerican Committee proceedings he looks forward to, Professor Kerr? And Dr, Ed 2's and Riva's valuable IANAL prespectives? These are the VC's leading IANAL minds these days.
:imagine a judiciary packed with Martin-clone new judges. "
As opposed to 235 Brown-Jackson-clone new judges?
Glad to see esteemed law professors suddenly become concerned about potential prosecutorial misconduct!
Don't worry too much, they'll go back to cheering, or at best ignoring such things like before, once team blue is back in charge.
This from Goldsmith examples the cause of my increasing despair about the legal community, and its role during the Trump 2 crisis for American constitutionalism:
Every senator who votes for Martin will be on the hook for his clearly predictable abuses of federal prosecutorial power.
To follow such a hard-headed warning about Martin with that bit of fatuous pablum undermines the purpose of the warning. Today's political reality is that there exists no such hook to put a senator on. Commenters who want preservation of American constitutionalism must cease reliance on nostrums already bypassed by politics.
This nation is not approaching a constitutional crisis; it is struggling in the end stages of one.
I personally like the direction this is headed, by that I mean I expect a few landmark cases going to the USSC that clearly define what is and what isn't within the President's Article 2 powers. The current situation where the Presidents can issue Executive Orders on any subject he senses needs attention or correction, and a Judiciary that believes it has to power to weigh in and issue orders on any action it finds objectionable is unworkable. Clear lanes need to be defined and established. The President can do this and not that, and Judges can order this and these other things are outside of their reach.
I don't particularly care which side of the current situation you are on, I think it would behoove everyone to agree lines must be drawn somewhere. The alternative is constant random subjective chaos.
Huh. I find myself in agreement. The constitutional crisis actually began in the 1930's. It's been gradually getting worse ever since, and we're now in the end game for the Constitution.
The problem is that the Democrats always thought they would be in charge.
BrettLaw
we're now in the end game for the Constitution.
Being in a republic requires a smidgen of humility. Brett has none.
Faced with generations of institutions, experts, and the American People disagreeing with his personal opinion, he'd rather declare the Republic over and the Constitution dead than allow the legitimacy of a take other than his own.
Investigating the legitimacy of pardons of possible crimes in his district is a proper part of a US Attorney's job. The rest should be disqualifying.
I took "groundless" to mean "there's no reason to think those pardons were invalid", not "investigating the legitimacy of pardons is not part of his job". I'm not too concerned about that part.
Dismissing charges against his own client is a blatant conflict of interest. However:
If the guy was pardoned, that makes the dismissal somewhat less bad. The government really doesn't have discretion to keep actively prosecuting. He still should have let someone else handle the case, though, and it makes me question his judgement and ethics that he did not.
Dude needs some experience before he gets to the Surpremes, Eric Holder committed more crimes wiping his ass than anything this guys supposed to have done
I imagine the people impressed by Goldsmith's case had already been won over by the preemptively-pardoned Adam Schiff's frequent anti-Martin tirades.
But I would certainly hate to see the stellar reputation the Justice Department built for itself during the Biden years be besmirched with any hint of "politicization".
The POTUS gets to pick his team. From the looks of it, POTUS Trump wants a wolf to hunt down all the little squirrels and chipmunks in DC.
This will be yet another test for Senator John Thune (who has impressed me with results). Let's see if he can get Martin over the goal line.
He literally doesn't, which is the entire point of the post.
You forget - given a choice between a candidate who has fealty to the Constitution and one who has fealty to Trump, XY will always prefer the latter, like the good little authoritarian he is.
Are "little squirrels and chipmunks" a major threat now? I know some of them sing in an annoying fashion, but still.
KevinP 3 hours ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Glad to see esteemed law professors suddenly become concerned about potential prosecutorial misconduct!
F.D. Wolf 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
But I would certainly hate to see the stellar reputation the Justice Department built for itself during the Biden years be besmirched with any hint of "politicization".
Frank Drackman 1 hour ago
Flag Comment
Mute User
Dude needs some experience before he gets to the Surpremes, Eric Holder committed more crimes wiping his ass than anything this guys supposed to have done
Unable to defend their Mad King’s chosen vizier here on neutral principles, the minions devolve into predictable “whataboutism.”
There’s a whole lot of that going on lately here. It’s almost as if all their talk about principles was always cover for talking about principals. I’ve seen a lot of commenters here who rightly complained about Obama and Biden actions on libertarian grounds who now turn around and defend the same actions when it’s their guy in charge doing what they want. It’s the worst sort of unprincipled consequentialism.
The principle, once again, is tit for tat.
I strongly disapprove of boxers resorting to kicking and biting, and using knuckledusters and lengths of lead piping. That’s against the rules, not to mention dangerous.
But if the guy in the spangly black trunks does this stuff and the ref takes no action, then I’m OK with the guy in the maroon trunks reciprocating.
There’s nothing to be said for Queensbury Rules for the maroon trunks guy and Anything Goes for the spangly black trunks guy.
The spangly black trunks guy may be hit with a length of lead piping often enough until he’s willing to get back to actual boxing.
Until then, the sport is not boxing, it’s just fighting. Different sport, different rules.
I think there are legitimate and serious questions about Biden's cognitive abilities during the last 6-9 months of his term (at least--we all saw the debate), and whether his close advisors covered it up (or worse, used auto pen). The pardons are only the tip of the iceberg. I personally don't think Biden was in charge, I think his wife and advisors were in charge**.
If Goldsmith were a serious person, he'd take this issue seriously. Instead, his screed boils down to: "Oh look, another anti-Trump Harvard elitist writing another anti-Trump screed against one of his nominees!"
Trump promised all these things during the campaign, including getting rid of the "very corrupt prosecutors" related to Jan 6th (whether you agree or disagree with this). Trump won. Martin is just the tool. Trump practically defines his policy by who he's pissing off ("We are pissing off all right people! including Jack Goldsmith! Whos been wrong about everything!"), so these won't be taken as criticisms; they will be taken as resume talking points.
**I'd feel differently if I thought Harris and the cabinet were actually in charge. That would almost be regular constitutional order, except for the cover up. I can rationalize why they'd hide it and not formally 25th amendment him. But Biden's advisors clinging to power when Biden didn't know what was going on, that is really just a coup d'etat in another form. Again, if Goldsmith wanted to play "serious constitutional scholar" he'd take this concern seriously. Its shared by half the country.
Putting aside your facts are off, including repeatedly refuted autopen conspiracy theories, Biden is no longer president.
Orin Kerr referenced something going on now, involving the ability to address things happening now and in the future.
There is no "screed" as such. He provides evidence on why a specific nominee (there are lots) is unfit. Trump promised stuff. Okay. He is now in power, and there are checks when he crosses the line. Including when the Senate has to confirm a nominee.
People are upset that Trump is crossing the line, which might make him happy, but it doesn't alone make their reasoned arguments on why wrong.
"repeatedly refuted autopen conspiracy theories"
Ahh yes, those repeatedly refuted COVID Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theories, and those repeatedly refuted Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theories... which 3 years later we know are not theories, right?
No reason to doubt at all Biden's cognitive decline. No reason to think Bidens advisors covered it up and got him to sign documents he didn't read.
You've convinced me!
Look a squirrel!
He fired career prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 cases.
Trump was elected as a verdict that was a miscarriage of justice.
He threatened to "chase … to the end of the Earth" not just people who had acted unlawfully, but "simply unethically"—a threat that is beyond his authority to make and is itself unethical.
Bullshyte it is unethical -- violations of the ethics rules are to be ignored if they are not also illegal?
He has made "a practice of sending threatening letters announcing vague 'inquiries' into figures he feels have crossed Trump in some way, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.)."
Schumer needed to be called on his "reap the whirlwind" speech, which was merely investigated, not prosecuted.
He is groundlessly using his office to question whether president Biden issued lawful pardons in his final days in office.
Removing the adjectives, isn't this something that the relevant USA ought to do -- i.e. ensure that the pardons were actually issued by the President?
He threatened Georgetown Law School over its DEI program without citing any legal principles.
Assuming GLS had the program, what's the issue? Do you honestly think that Georgetown LAW doesn't know what legal principles he is referencing?
He conceives of his role as U.S. attorney primarily as one of "Trump's lawyers" fighting to "protect his leadership," as he made clear in connection with the case brought against the government by the Associated Press.
At least Trump is running his administration, not that the Bite Me regeme didn't have people doing this.
He has engaged in other conduct unbecoming of a federal prosecutor on social media.
Rachael Rollins threatened a TV news crew with false arrest ON CAMERA. She took road rage to such an extreme that the Boston Police wouldn't allow her to drive herself anymore and provided her an officer to drive her car for her. (NB: Suffolk County essentially is Boston, memory is that it was a BPD officer.)
If Rachel Rollins can be confirmed, Ed Martin should be as well -- at the worst, he can become Bondi's problem much as she was Meritless Garland's problem.
Yes, Trump was elected to put an end to the J6 prosecutions, and similar abuses. The best way is to fire the people involved. Kerr is just a Trump-hater who wanted Trump prosecuted.
Do not disagree with any of this post. This stuff is not good.
Also, Eric Holder called himself Barack Obama's wingman.
Has Mr. Goldsmith shared a copy of the ethics complaint he is ethically required to have filed in regards to all this unethical behavior?
Mr. Martin's antics and ethical lapses have been widely and publicly reported. I've read about them in the news, and I'd bet a nickel that's Mr. Goldsmith's data source as well.
Allow me to express extreme skepticism that I am in violation of model rule 8.3 if I don't personally submit an ethics complaint ... and the same for Mr. Goldsmith.
Martin is a clown and should not be confirmed, and that doesn't even have to have anything to do with ethics or Trump or whatever. Even if you love Trump and his agenda you should not want Martin confirmed, because he is incompetent and has no idea how anything works.
If you want to prosecute things, you need prosecutors, and he's driving out essentially all of his experienced federal court prosecutors. Making it clear that you will humiliate your best people for internet cred is not going to create loyalty among the rest. No one from other below the radar sections is interested in moving over and becoming the new targets, so they're bringing in people from other DOJ divisions without any prosecutorial experience to shore it up. The problem will spiral until it's only the worst of the worst willing to do the job. He's doing while claiming that he's actually going to increase federal court prosecutions of local gun crime, which is totally laughable.
He has essentially ended plea bargaining, which will soon leave the office with more trials and hearings then they can handle, with inexperienced prosecutors who are pissing off the judges, and still without the benefit of a full functional crime lab so they'll get to argue cases in front of DC juries without forensics and with every decent prosecutor constantly jumping ship as soon as they can.
He's an embarrassment in general. Just see the recent article about him trying to connect with local DC communities by complaining about USAID funding.
A complete moron that will actually sink any attempt by Trump to improve the crime situation in the district. I guess people think the vengeance side of things will go well enough to outweigh that, but really this is a stunning level of incompetence for a key US Attorneys Office and there's no predicting how many good cases he's going to destroy.
I wonder if the legal establishment in the United States realizes how little credibility they have left with the American public. Various judges, law professors, prosecutors, district attorneys, and legal commentators have done permanent damage to our system for personal and petty reasons. What an utter disgrace.
As Louis XIV put it, “L’Etat, c’est moi.” Mr. Trump was elected on the proposition that he would similarly personify America. He IS America. His interests ARE America’s interests. To cross him IS to cross America. His enemies ARE Annerica’s enemies.
In such a regime, what business does a person unwilling to advance Mr. Trump’s interests and bring down his enemies have being in his employ? What else would Mr. Trump be hiring him for? And what job does a Republican Senator have other than to serve America’s interests, thereby winning America’s favor and keeping the gravy train rolling and the gravy flowing?
In 1776, a bunch of leftist thugs took over and made war on the natural order of things, government of, by, and for the Great. They made America such a lousy, miserable place, with low-lifes and lesser breeds putting on such airs, that even the pussy thought it could complain when you grabbed it. Trump got into office promising to restore order and Make America Great Again. What exactly did you think he meant?