# Judge [[Beryl Howell]] Opposition Research Dossier ![[Beryl Howell.png]] ## Introduction [[Beryl Howell]] is a federal judge who served as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia from 2016 to 2023. An appointee of President [[Barack Obama]], [[Beryl Howell]] has presided over numerous politically charged cases, including high-profile investigations and litigation involving former President [[Donald Trump]]. Her rulings---especially those denying privilege claims by [[Donald Trump]] and his allies---have made her a focal point of criticism by Republican officials and commentators who accuse her of partisan bias. This dossier provides a comprehensive overview of Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s background, her key decisions (particularly in [[Donald Trump]]-related matters), timelines of her involvement in Special Counsel [[Jack Smith]]'s investigations and [[January 6, 2021]] cases, and an analysis of controversies surrounding her conduct, public statements, and potential vulnerabilities. ## Biography and Career Timeline **Early Life and Education:** Born in 1956 at Fort Benning, Georgia, [[Beryl Howell]] was raised in an Army family, attending schools across six states and [Germany](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). She earned a B.A. from Bryn Mawr College in 1978 and a [J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1983](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). **Early Legal Career:** - **1983--1984:** Law clerk for Judge [[Dickinson Debevoise]] ([D.N.J.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell)). - **1985--1987:** Associate at [Schulte Roth & Zabel in New York](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). - **1987--1993:** Assistant U.S. Attorney, E.D. New York, rising to [Deputy Chief of Narcotics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). During this time she worked alongside colleagues like [[Loretta Lynch]] and [[Andrew Weissmann]] in [Brooklyn](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/). - **1993--2003:** Senior Senate Judiciary Committee counsel to Senator [[Patrick Leahy]], serving as the committee's **General Counsel** from [1997--2003](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). In this role she helped craft major legislation on cybercrime, digital copyright (including the DMCA), and post-9/11 security laws such as the [USA PATRIOT Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). Her work earned recognition from FOIA advocacy groups for [defending transparency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). **Private Sector and Policy Roles:** - **2003--2009:** Executive Managing Director & General Counsel at [Stroz Friedberg, a digital forensics firm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). She also lobbied on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) during this time. _(Her past as an RIAA lobbyist drew some notice when she later presided over [file-sharing cases as a judge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell).)_ - **2004--2010:** Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, initially appointed by Republican President [[[George W. Bush]]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). **Federal Judicial Service:** - **July 2010:** Nominated by President [[Barack Obama]] to the U.S. District Court for D.C., filling the seat of Judge [[Paul Friedman]]. Senator [[Patrick Leahy]] personally lobbied President [[Barack Obama]] to choose her, calling [[Beryl Howell]] ["the perfect person to be a federal judge,"](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/) according to remarks by [[Barack Obama]]'s White House Counsel [[Kathy Ruemmler]]. [[Beryl Howell]] was [[Barack Obama]]'s _first_ judicial pick for the [influential D.C. District bench](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/). - **Dec 2010:** Unanimously confirmed by the Senate on a voice vote and received commission shortly after. (The American Bar Association rated her ["Well Qualified"](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell).) - **2011--Present:** Serves on the U.S. District Court (active service 2011--2024, assumed [senior status [[February 1, 2024]]](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell)). - **Chief Judge (2016--2023):** Ascended to Chief Judge on [[March 17, 2016]], [based on seniority](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). She led the court through a tumultuous period that included the COVID-19 pandemic and the [[January 6, 2021]] Capitol riot. She stepped down as Chief on [[March 17, 2023]], upon completing her 7-year term. **Notable Traits:** [[Beryl Howell]] earned a reputation as a tech-savvy jurist with [deep policy experience](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html). Colleagues describe her as **"blunt"** and **no-nonsense** on the [bench](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html), yet also someone who ["doesn't map cleanly" ideologically](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html). A former mentor, Sen. [[Patrick Leahy]], praised her ["steely conviction"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html). Critics, however, see her long Democratic-aligned career -- from working for Sen. [[Patrick Leahy]] to being championed by [[Barack Obama]] -- as evidence of partisan leanings. ## Key Rulings & Positions in [[Donald Trump]]-Related Matters Judge [[Beryl Howell]] has been centrally involved in litigation connected to [[Donald Trump]], especially investigations led by Special Counsel [[Robert Mueller]] and later [[Jack Smith]]. Nearly all her high-profile decisions in these matters have _favored_ investigators or [[Donald Trump]]'s adversaries, which opponents characterize as a pattern of anti-[[Donald Trump]] bias. Below is an analysis of her major [[Donald Trump]]-related rulings: - **[[Robert Mueller]] Investigation Grand Jury (2018--2019):** As Chief Judge, [[Beryl Howell]] supervised the grand jury for Special Counsel [[Robert Mueller]]'s probe into [Russian election interference](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). In October 2019, she ruled that the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry into President [[Donald Trump]] qualified as a "judicial proceeding," and ordered the [[DOJ]] to disclose secret [[Robert Mueller]] grand jury materials to [Congress](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). In a strongly worded opinion, she lambasted [[DOJ]] arguments as ["smack of farce,"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell) noting the administration's open stonewalling of Congress. (This ruling was effectively mooted on appeal as time ran out on the 116th Congress, sparing [[Donald Trump]] from any immediate consequence.) [[Donald Trump]] later singled out this decision as "pathologically bad," claiming it became ["the talk of the town" before being overturned](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/truth-social-posts-april-23-2025). - **Crime-Fraud Piercing of Attorney--Client Privilege (2023):** In a landmark sealed order in March 2023, [[Beryl Howell]] granted Special Counsel **[[Jack Smith]]**'s request to compel testimony from [[Donald Trump]]'s attorney [[Evan Corcoran]], ruling that attorney-client privilege was voided by the **[crime-fraud exception](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297)**. She found "sufficient evidence" that [[Donald Trump]] may have used [[Evan Corcoran]]'s legal services to further a crime (related to [[Donald Trump]]'s handling of classified documents at [Mar-a-Lago](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297)). This unprecedented decision forced [[Donald Trump]]'s lawyer to turn over notes and testify to the [grand jury](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297). [[Donald Trump]]'s camp decried the move as "playing corrupt games with the Constitution" and evidence of ["Trump Derangement Syndrome" on the part of investigators](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297). ([[Beryl Howell]]'s ruling was briefly stayed but ultimately upheld by the D.C. Circuit, delivering [[Jack Smith]] a significant victory.) - **Rejecting Executive Privilege Claims (2022--2023):** [[Beryl Howell]] repeatedly denied efforts by [[Donald Trump]] to shield information by asserting executive privilege over former officials' testimony. Notably, in fall 2022 she ruled that former White House Counsel **[[Pat Cipollone]]** and deputy **[[Pat Philbin]]** had to answer additional grand jury questions despite [[Donald Trump]]'s [privilege claims](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813). In early 2023, she issued a sealed order rejecting [[Donald Trump]]'s executive privilege objections and compelling testimony from **[[Mark Meadows]]** (ex-Chief of Staff) and other top aides including [[John Ratcliffe]], [[Robert O'Brien]], [[Stephen Miller]], [[Dan Scavino]], [[Nick Luna]], and [[John McEntee]]. [[Beryl Howell]]'s rulings emphasized that a former president cannot override the decision of the incumbent president ([[Joe Biden]]) to waive executive privilege for [[DOJ]]'s [criminal investigation](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813). These orders -- described by [[Donald Trump]] allies as the [[DOJ]] ["destroy[ing]" long-held privilege norms](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813) -- forced many of [[Donald Trump]]'s inner circle back to the grand jury to divulge information. ([[Donald Trump]]'s appeals of these decisions largely failed or were [abandoned](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813).) - **[[January 6, 2021]] Grand Jury and [[Mike Pence]]'s Aides (2022):** Earlier, [[Beryl Howell]] similarly denied privilege claims for **[[Greg Jacob]]** and **[[Marc Short]]**, top aides to Vice President [[Mike Pence]], ordering them to testify about [[Donald Trump]]'s efforts around [[[January 6, 2021]]](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813). She found [[Donald Trump]] could not invoke executive privilege to bar their testimony in the Jan. 6 probe, again deferring to the incumbent administration's [judgment](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813). This set the stage for [[Mike Pence]] himself eventually testifying (a fight that occurred under [[Beryl Howell]]'s successor). These moves demonstrated [[Beryl Howell]]'s expansive view that neither executive privilege nor attorney-client secrecy could be used to conceal possible wrongdoing in [[Donald Trump]]'s post-election actions. - **[[January 6, 2021]] Criminal Cases -- Sentencing and Criticisms of [[DOJ]]:** Although Judge [[Beryl Howell]] did not preside over the most prominent Jan. 6 rioter trials, she handled several misdemeanor cases and used those forums to speak out about the attack. In **August 2021**, [[Beryl Howell]] openly **criticized [[DOJ]]** for charging many rioters only with petty offenses like "parading" in the Capitol, suggesting prosecutors were **["too lenient"](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/09/judge-feds-lenient-jan-6-503052)** and questioning why defendants weren't made to admit they intended to stop Congress's certification of the 2020 election. "Is it the government's view that the mob was simply trespassers?" she asked incredulously, warning that treating the cases as minor misdeeds could [undermine deterrence](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/06/jan6-sentencings-judges/). She pressed prosecutors on why they weren't using harsher charges or larger restitution amounts, signaling she viewed Jan. 6 as an [extraordinarily serious offense](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/09/judge-feds-lenient-jan-6-503052). In **February 2022**, during one sentencing, [[Beryl Howell]] blasted the Republican National Committee's characterization of Jan. 6 as "legitimate political discourse," declaring in court: _"This was not legitimate political discourse. This was not a [protest."](https://www.axios.com/2022/02/18/jan-6-charges-beryl-howell-confusion)_ She suggested [[DOJ]]'s practice of cutting misdemeanor plea deals **["could be fostering confusion"](https://www.axios.com/2022/02/18/jan-6-charges-beryl-howell-confusion)** about the gravity of the insurrection. - Despite her tough rhetoric, [[Beryl Howell]]'s actual sentences in Jan. 6 misdemeanor cases were generally below what prosecutors sought. As of [[January 6, 2022]], she had sentenced four Jan. 6 defendants---lecturing them sternly about the attack---but _in each case imposed less jail time than [[DOJ]] [requested](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/06/jan6-sentencings-judges/)_. She often opted for mixed sentences (short incarceration, home confinement, and probation) rather than lengthy jail terms, noting the limits imposed by the petty charges and plea deals. This inconsistency drew some comment: [[Beryl Howell]] would scold [[DOJ]] for leniency even as she, like most judges, followed the plea agreements to give [lighter sentences](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/06/jan6-sentencings-judges/). Nonetheless, her **pointed comments** on the record (e.g. accusing a "major political party" of downplaying a riot) have fueled perception that she is **overtly hostile toward Jan. 6 defendants and the broader pro-[[Donald Trump]] [movement](https://www.axios.com/2022/02/18/jan-6-charges-beryl-howell-confusion)**. - **[[Donald Trump]]'s Post-Presidency Actions (2025):** Since leaving the chief judgeship, [[Beryl Howell]] has continued to hear cases as a district judge and has ruled against [[Donald Trump]]'s interests in multiple matters related to his 2024 presidential campaign and return to office: - In **March 2025**, [[Beryl Howell]] **enjoined an executive order** issued by President [[Donald Trump]] that targeted the law firm **[[Perkins Coie]]** (a firm associated with Democratic causes and [[Hillary Clinton]]). [[Donald Trump]]'s Executive Order 14230 (signed [[March 6, 2025]]) sought to punish [[Perkins Coie]] for its work on election litigation and other activities, by barring federal agencies from doing business with the firm and imposing broad [penalties on its attorneys](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/perkins-coie-v-u-s-department-of-justice-2025/). Judge [[Beryl Howell]] granted a temporary restraining order and later a permanent injunction in _[[Perkins Coie]] LLP v. [[DOJ]]_, finding the order **[unconstitutional retaliation](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/perkins-coie-v-u-s-department-of-justice-2025/)** that violated the First Amendment (viewpoint discrimination), as well as Fifth Amendment due process and the right to counsel. In a 102-page opinion, she blasted [[Donald Trump]]'s unprecedented action "targeting a prominent law firm" as an assault on the rule of law, invoking Shakespeare's line "kill all the lawyers" to underscore the executive order's [menacing intent](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/perkins-coie-v-u-s-department-of-justice-2025/). She wrote that _"No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue... The instant case presents an unprecedented attack on...foundational [principles."](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/perkins-coie-v-u-s-department-of-justice-2025/)_ This bold ruling drew national attention, effectively thwarting [[Donald Trump]]'s attempt to exact retribution on a firm tied to his political opponents. (It also underscored [[Beryl Howell]]'s willingness to issue nationwide relief against [[Donald Trump]]'s executive actions.) [[Donald Trump]]'s administration tried to get her **recused** from the case -- citing her supposed bias -- but [[Beryl Howell]] flatly refused (see **Recusal Attempt** below). - Also in **early 2025**, [[Beryl Howell]] ruled against the [[Donald Trump]] administration in a separate matter by **blocking the removal of an [[NLRB]] official**. In January 2025, President [[Donald Trump]] fired [[Gwynne Wilcox]], a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board. [[Beryl Howell]] issued an injunction on [[March 6, 2025]], ordering [[Gwynne Wilcox]] reinstated, finding [[Donald Trump]] likely exceeded his authority by [dismissing an independent agency member contrary to statute](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell). (A colleague, Judge [[Rudolph Contreras]], similarly reinstated a fired Merit Systems Protection Board [member](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell).) The D.C. Circuit upheld these rulings en banc, but in May 2025 the **Supreme Court intervened** and _stayed_ [[Beryl Howell]]'s order in a 6--3 decision, siding with [[Donald Trump]]'s view of [broad removal power](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell). This episode highlighted [[Beryl Howell]]'s tendency to **check [[Donald Trump]]'s executive authority**, as well as the fact that her high-profile decisions can be reversed by higher courts. Indeed, [[Donald Trump]] allies point to the Supreme Court stay as validation that [[Beryl Howell]]'s pro-[[Gwynne Wilcox]] ruling "will not stand" in the end -- a setback they say exposes her judicial overreach. The **table below** summarizes the timeline of Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s involvement in notable [[Donald Trump]] or [[Jack Smith]]--related proceedings: |**Date**|**Case / Matter**|**[[Beryl Howell]]'s Action / Decision**| |---|---|---| |**Oct 2019**|House Judiciary Cmte. v. [[DOJ]] ([[Robert Mueller]] GJ materials)|Ordered release of secret grand jury evidence to House impeachment inquiry; rejected [[DOJ]] arguments as ["farce"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). _(Later mooted on appeal.)_| |**Aug 2021**|U.S. v. Croy (Jan.6 misdemeanor)|Questioned [[DOJ]]'s leniency; suggested misdemeanor plea was inadequate for Capitol [riot](https://www.politico.com/news/2021/08/09/judge-feds-lenient-jan-6-503052).| |**Feb 2022**|U.S. v. Stenz (Jan.6 misdemeanor)|Publicly refuted GOP's "legitimate political discourse" claim; warned low-level charges sow confusion about Jan.6's [severity](https://www.axios.com/2022/02/18/jan-6-charges-beryl-howell-confusion).| |**Oct--Dec 2022**|Sealed grand jury matters ([[Jack Smith]] probe)|Denied [[Donald Trump]]'s executive privilege claims, compelling testimony of [[Mike Pence]] aides ([[Marc Short]]/[[Greg Jacob]]) and White House lawyers ([[Pat Cipollone]]/[[Pat Philbin]]). Also granted [[DOJ]] access to Rep. **[[Scott Perry]]'s** cell phone data, ruling his post-election communications were largely **not** protected by Speech-or-Debate Clause (decision later narrowed by D.C. Circuit).| |**Mar 2023**|Sealed grand jury matter (Mar-a-Lago docs)|Invoked **crime-fraud exception** to force [[Donald Trump]] attorney [[Evan Corcoran]] to testify and produce notes, [piercing attorney--client privilege](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297). This aided Special Counsel's eventual indictment in the documents case.| |**[[March 24, 2023]]**|(Sealed) In re Grand Jury (Jan.6 probe)|Issued sealed ruling rejecting [[Donald Trump]]'s exec. privilege for [[Mark Meadows]], [[John Ratcliffe]], [[Robert O'Brien]], [[Stephen Miller]], [[Dan Scavino]], [[Ken Cuccinelli]], etc., ordering their [testimony](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813). (News of the order broke days [later](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813).)| |**Dec 2023**|WWCDA Gala Speech (public remarks)|In a speech, spoke of **"the impact of big lies"** evident at Jan.6 sentencings and alluded to threats of fascism (see **Public Statements** below). Led to ethics complaint by Rep. [[Elise Stefanik]].| |**[[March 6, 2025]]**|_[[Gwynne Wilcox]] v. [[Joe Biden]]_ ([[NLRB]] firing)|Blocked President [[Donald Trump]]'s firing of [[NLRB]] member [[Gwynne Wilcox]], ordering her [reinstated](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell). _(Decision later stayed by Supreme [Court](https://ballotpedia.org/Beryl_A._Howell))._| |**[[March 12, 2025]]**|_[[Perkins Coie]] LLP v. [[DOJ]]_ (Exec. Order 14230)|Issued TRO halting [[Donald Trump]]'s anti-[[Perkins Coie]] [order](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/). Subsequently, on [[May 2, 2025]], granted permanent injunction, declaring the order an unconstitutional attempt to punish dissenting [viewpoints](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/perkins-coie-v-u-s-department-of-justice-2025/).| |**[[March 26, 2025]]**|_[[Perkins Coie]]_ case -- Recusal motion|Denied [[Donald Trump]] [[DOJ]]'s motion to recuse her for alleged bias, defending judicial impartiality and accusing the administration of [baseless innuendo](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/).| As seen above, [[Beryl Howell]]'s decisions consistently went against [[Donald Trump]]'s interests -- whether by compelling evidence from his inner circle, rejecting his privilege/immunity claims, or striking down his official actions. This pattern has not gone unnoticed by [[Donald Trump]] and his allies, fueling a narrative that Judge [[Beryl Howell]] is not an impartial arbiter but rather a politically motivated "foe" on the bench. ## Criticisms and Controversies **Accusations of Partisanship:** Judge [[Beryl Howell]] has been **openly criticized by Republican lawmakers and pro-[[Donald Trump]] figures**, who portray her as a Democratic activist in robes. A central point of attack is her long history of working with Democratic politicians and her rulings adverse to [[Donald Trump]]. For example, Rep. **[[Elise Stefanik]]** (R-NY), the third-ranking House Republican, filed a formal judicial misconduct complaint in [[December 15, 2023]] accusing [[Beryl Howell]] of **["highly inappropriate political speech"](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/)** and **"illegal election meddling"**. [[Elise Stefanik]]'s complaint highlighted [[Beryl Howell]]'s **close personal ties to Democratic officials**, noting that [[Beryl Howell]] appeared at a gala with **Deputy Attorney General [[Lisa Monaco]]** (a [[Joe Biden]] appointee and friend of [[Beryl Howell]]) and was introduced by **[[Barack Obama]]-era** figures like [[Loretta Lynch]] and [[Kathy Ruemmler]]. [[Elise Stefanik]] alleged that [[Beryl Howell]] _"insinuated the election of President [[Donald Trump]] will lead to fascism in America"_ during that event and that her remarks _["consist[ed] of partisan statements"](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/)_ unbecoming a judge. She further claimed [[Beryl Howell]]'s chumminess with top [[Joe Biden]] Justice Department officials ([[Lisa Monaco]]) who appear before her undermines public trust. In [[Elise Stefanik]]'s words, _["election interference by judges destroys public confidence in the federal judiciary...and is illegal. It must end now."](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/)_ Her filing accused [[Beryl Howell]] of flouting judicial ethics by effectively taking sides against [[Donald Trump]]. President **[[Donald Trump]]** himself has attacked [[Beryl Howell]] in scathing terms. In an [[April 23, 2025]] Truth Social post, [[Donald Trump]] called Judge [[Beryl Howell]] _"an [[Barack Obama]] appointment, and a highly biased and unfair disaster."_ He wrote, _"I could have a 100% perfect case and she would angrily rule against me... It's called Trump Derangement Syndrome, and she's got a bad case of it. To put it nicely, [[Beryl Howell]] is an unmitigated train wreck. [NO JUSTICE!!!"](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/truth-social-posts-april-23-2025)_ [[Donald Trump]] also referenced an earlier case where [[Beryl Howell]] ruled against him "in a shocking display of sick judicial temperament" that, according to [[Donald Trump]], was later reversed on appeal. (He appears to be alluding either to [[Beryl Howell]]'s pro-Congress [[Robert Mueller]] grand jury decision or her [[NLRB]] injunction -- both instances where higher courts stalled or overturned her rulings to [[Donald Trump]]'s relief.) Such public broadsides by a former President against a sitting judge are extraordinary, reflecting the depth of animosity. [[Donald Trump]]'s team has consistently painted [[Beryl Howell]] as part of a **biased D.C. judiciary**, with [[Donald Trump]]'s spokesperson accusing [[DOJ]] (and by implication its supervising judges) of **["corrupting the legal process and weaponizing the justice system"](https://abcnews.go.com/US/meadows-top-trump-aides-ordered-testify-jan-6/story?id=98101813)** against him. Other conservative voices echo these themes. When [[Beryl Howell]]'s **crime-fraud** ruling forcing [[Donald Trump]]'s attorney testimony became public, right-leaning commentators decried it as an unprecedented assault on attorney--client privilege driven by anti-[[Donald Trump]] fervor. Some pointed out [[Beryl Howell]]'s background as a **Democratic Senate staffer** and friend of "[[Donald Trump]] antagonists" like [[Andrew Weissmann]] ([[Robert Mueller]]'s deputy) to argue she is **"not neutral"**. Republican members of Congress have cited [[Beryl Howell]]'s Jan. 6 remarks as proof of **partiality**. In May 2024, Rep. [[Elise Stefanik]] and Rep. **[[Jim Jordan]]** (R-OH) sent a letter to the D.C. Circuit questioning why [[Elise Stefanik]]'s complaint against [[Beryl Howell]] was dismissed, underscoring their belief that her conduct _["violat[ed] Canon 2B"](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/)_ of judicial ethics by undermining confidence in impartiality. They specifically highlighted [[Beryl Howell]] referring to [[Donald Trump]] as "authoritarian" in her [[November 27, 2023]] speech and speaking of "big lies" affecting Jan. 6 [cases](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/). These members frame [[Beryl Howell]] as _["a judge who oversaw the indictment of [[[Donald Trump]]]"](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/)_ and thus someone who should have been more restrained. The **Justice Department under [[Donald Trump]] (2025)** took the unusual step of formally moving to disqualify [[Beryl Howell]] from the [[Perkins Coie]] case, cataloguing what it called a **["pattern of hostility"](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/)** toward [[Donald Trump]] in her rulings and comments. That recusal motion cited her Jan. 6 case remarks and various decisions against [[Donald Trump]] as evidence she could not be [fair](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/). ([[Beryl Howell]] forcefully denied this, as discussed below.) **Allegations of Disparate Treatment:** Some critics have accused [[Beryl Howell]] of treating Jan. 6 defendants more harshly _in rhetoric_ than other political offenders. They note that [[Beryl Howell]], in her own courtroom, suggested Jan. 6 rioters were getting off too lightly -- which aligns with a **maximalist view of Jan. 6 severity** often voiced by Democrats. In contrast, they claim, D.C. judges (including [[Beryl Howell]]) did not show similar zeal toward protesters from left-wing causes (for instance, 2020 racial justice rioters). This argument is part of a broader **conservative narrative** that [[Donald Trump]]-friendly defendants in D.C. face _"two tiers of justice."_ However, it must be noted that in the actual sentences [[Beryl Howell]] handed down for Jan. 6 misdemeanors, she was relatively [lenient (below [[DOJ]] recommendations)](https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/01/06/jan6-sentencings-judges/), even as she delivered stern lectures. There is **no evidence** [[Beryl Howell]] singled out any Jan. 6 defendant for punishment beyond legal guidelines; the controversy is mainly over her outspoken courtroom commentary. Nonetheless, her high-profile statements -- e.g. implying Jan. 6 was fueled by the "big lie" of election fraud -- feed the perception that she **pre-judges** such cases with a political lens. This became fodder for [[Donald Trump]]'s [[DOJ]] in attempting to recuse her: they argued she had **["prejudged the guilt"](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/)** of [[Donald Trump]] and his supporters by regularly condemning their motives from the bench. **Public Perception:** Within the legal community, [[Beryl Howell]] is generally respected as knowledgeable and effective, but even some liberals acknowledge she has **an aggressive style**. For example, during a 2016 trial involving an MSNBC host, [[Beryl Howell]] snapped at an attorney, saying _["Your client may be a star in some circles. He is not a star in this courtroom...his arrogance is...unacceptable"](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html)_. Such incidents cement her image as a **tough judge**, but they also show she doesn't shy from sharp, perhaps intemperate remarks. To supporters, this no-nonsense attitude is aimed at upholding court decorum and the rule of law equally. To detractors, her barbs (especially when aimed at [[Donald Trump]]'s side) reveal a personal animus. The **"[[Barack Obama]] judge"** label is frequently applied to [[Beryl Howell]] by her critics to suggest partisan loyalty. Indeed, Senator **[[Lindsey Graham]]** once warned that _"radical liberal"_ judges in D.C. (implying [[Beryl Howell]] and others) were handing out excessive sentences to Jan. 6 rioters -- though in [[Beryl Howell]]'s case, the record of sentences doesn't fully support that claim. Still, the **optics** of [[Beryl Howell]]'s background and her outspoken opinions have provided ample ammunition to those looking to discredit the legal cases against [[Donald Trump]] by attacking the referees. ## [[Beryl Howell]]'s Public Statements and Political Activity Unlike many federal judges who keep a low public profile, Judge [[Beryl Howell]] has made a few **notable public comments** that have drawn scrutiny: - **WWCDA "Champion Award" Speech ([[November 27, 2023]]):** [[Beryl Howell]] received an award from the Women's White Collar Defense Association and delivered a speech that became highly controversial. In her remarks, she referenced historian [[Heather Cox Richardson]]'s warnings about threats to democracy, and pointedly said: _"My D.C. judicial colleagues and I regularly see the impact of_ _big lies_ _at the sentencing of hundreds...of individuals...on Jan. 6, 2021, when they disrupted the certification of the 2020 presidential election at the [U.S. Capitol."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell)_ She spoke of how the **"big lies"** (widely interpreted as [[Donald Trump]]'s false claims of a stolen election) have real consequences in fueling violence. According to reports (and [[Elise Stefanik]]'s complaint), [[Beryl Howell]] also suggested that **reelecting [[Donald Trump]] could lead to fascism** in America, and praised Deputy AG [[Lisa Monaco]] -- who oversees Jan. 6 prosecutions -- as a close friend and ally in upholding the rule of law. Former AG [[Loretta Lynch]] and former WH Counsel [[Kathy Ruemmler]], both prominent Democrats, joined her on stage, with [[Kathy Ruemmler]] effusively praising [[Beryl Howell]] as [[Barack Obama]]'s **["very first"](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/)** judicial pick and a dear friend. The event, essentially a celebration of women in law enforcement and defense, had a **decidedly Democratic-leaning cast**, which made [[Beryl Howell]]'s participation and comments even more polarizing. Republicans seized on this speech as proof that [[Beryl Howell]] harbors partisan animus. The fact that [[Beryl Howell]] spoke about ongoing matters (Jan. 6 cases) and implicitly about [[Donald Trump]] ("big lies") in a public forum was seen as violating the norm of judicial restraint in political discourse. This speech is what prompted Rep. [[Elise Stefanik]]'s misconduct complaint, where she charged that [[Beryl Howell]] **["suggested reelecting President [[Donald Trump]] will lead to fascism"](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/)** and thereby engaged in **"partisan election interference"**. While federal judges do have some leeway to comment on threats to the judiciary or rule of law, suggesting a particular political outcome ([[Donald Trump]]'s return to office) would usher in tyranny edges into political territory. [[Beryl Howell]]'s defenders might argue she was speaking to the importance of truth in the justice system, not endorsing a candidate. Regardless, this episode handed her critics perhaps their strongest evidence of **political bias in her own words**. - **Interviews and Writings:** [[Beryl Howell]] has not been a prolific public speaker in media. However, she has written articles and essays in years past, often on legal policy. For instance, she penned a 2005 piece defending provisions of the [Patriot Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell) and a 2007 law review article on [FISA surveillance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). These writings show her as generally **supportive of law enforcement tools** in national security and cyber contexts. (Some civil libertarians found it ironic that a former [[Patrick Leahy]] staffer championed expansive surveillance powers, but others note she balanced this by advocating [FOIA transparency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell).) There is no indication [[Beryl Howell]] made partisan statements in these publications -- they are more technical legal analyses. She has also taught legal ethics as an [adjunct professor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). Overall, **nothing in her academic or professional writings suggests overt partisan advocacy**. The focal point remains her **judicial pronouncements and off-bench commentary** related to [[Donald Trump]]-era controversies. - **Emails or Private Communications:** There have been no leaked communications or scandals suggesting [[Beryl Howell]] engages in partisan politicking behind the scenes. No known **Inspector General** reports or OPR (Office of Professional Responsibility) investigations involve [[Beryl Howell]]. In this sense, any claims of bias rely on inference from her public conduct and associations, rather than smoking-gun evidence of unethical coordination. It's worth noting that the **D.C. Circuit's judicial council dismissed the misconduct complaint** against [[Beryl Howell]] in [early 2024](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/). The complaint was deemed procedurally "wrongly filed", and no formal discipline was imposed. This indicates that, at least within the judiciary's self-regulatory system, [[Beryl Howell]]'s comments did not rise to the level of sanctionable offense. ([[Elise Stefanik]] and [[Jim Jordan]]'s continuing inquiries into the dismissal suggest they may believe the judiciary protected its own.) In summary, **[[Beryl Howell]]'s public statements** have occasionally crossed the usual boundaries of judicial reticence -- providing critics ample fodder to claim she is a **[[Donald Trump]] antagonist** rather than a neutral magistrate. However, aside from the award speech, she largely hasn't campaigned or commented on elections. The intensity of the blowback is a testament to how any perceived bias in judges handling [[Donald Trump]]-related cases becomes magnified in the public arena. ## Recusal Attempts and Ethics Complaints Because of the concerns outlined above, parties have sought to **remove [[Beryl Howell]] from certain cases**: - **[[Donald Trump]] [[DOJ]] Recusal Motion ([[Perkins Coie]] case, 2025):** After Judge [[Beryl Howell]] issued a preliminary injunction against [[Donald Trump]]'s anti-[[Perkins Coie]] executive order, the Justice Department (under [[Donald Trump]]) filed a formal motion in March 2025 to [disqualify her](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/). [[DOJ]]'s filing accused [[Beryl Howell]] of **"rife"** bias, citing her prior remarks about Jan. 6 and her role in investigations of [[[Donald Trump]]](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/). Specifically, they argued that her record **"reflects a pattern of hostility toward [[Donald Trump]]"** in both **court rulings and public statements**. This is a highly unusual step -- effectively the sitting administration argued the judge could not be impartial. [[Beryl Howell]] responded with a **21-page order refusing to step aside**. She wrote that the motion was _["rife with innuendo"](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/)_ and did not "come close" to the legal standard for recusal. Prior adverse rulings, she noted, are not valid grounds to [disqualify a judge](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/). Moreover, she admonished that the administration's strategy _["is designed to impugn the integrity of the federal judicial system and blame any loss on the decision-maker rather than [on] the...legal arguments"](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/)_. [[Beryl Howell]]'s defiant tone in denying recusal underscored her view that the executive's complaint was meritless and politically motivated. She even gave a civics lecture of sorts, reminding that _["Adjudicating whether an Executive Branch exercise of power is legal...is the job of the federal courts, not of the President or [[DOJ]]."](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-spurns-trump-administration-request-recuse-law-firm-case-2025-03-26/)_ This showdown was one more flashpoint -- [[Beryl Howell]] essentially accusing [[Donald Trump]]'s [[DOJ]] of attacking judicial independence, and [[Donald Trump]]'s team accusing her of bias. Ultimately, [[Beryl Howell]] remained on the case and went on to permanently strike down the [executive order](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell). The failed recusal attempt may nevertheless serve as **political groundwork** should the [[Donald Trump]] administration (or Congressional Republicans) consider more drastic remedies against her (like impeachment). - **Rep. [[Elise Stefanik]]'s Misconduct Complaint (2023--24):** Filed with the D.C. Circuit Judicial Council in [[December 15, 2023]], it alleged **violations of the judicial conduct code** by [[Beryl Howell]] for the [[November 27, 2023]] speech. As detailed earlier, [[Elise Stefanik]] said [[Beryl Howell]]'s partisan tone and coziness with figures like [[Lisa Monaco]] and [[Loretta Lynch]] breached Canon 2's requirement to maintain the appearance of [impartiality](https://eliseforcongress.com/2023/12/15/stefanik-files-judicial-misconduct-complaint-against-dc-obama-judge-beryl-howell-for-partisan-speech-and-illegal-election-meddling/). The complaint's dismissal (on procedural grounds, reportedly because it was filed directly by a third party rather than through the usual process for litigants) did not satisfy [[Elise Stefanik]]. In May 2024 she publicly questioned the dismissal, implying a lack of transparency or [accountability](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/). While the complaint did not result in formal action, it certainly drew media coverage and kept attention on [[Beryl Howell]]'s conduct. Additionally, [[Elise Stefanik]] revealed she had filed _multiple_ complaints against jurists involved in [[Donald Trump]] cases -- part of a broader GOP tactic to spotlight potential conflicts (she also targeted the judge overseeing [[Donald Trump]]'s New York case, and even Special Counsel [[Jack Smith]] [himself](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/)). The **optics** of a top GOP lawmaker pressing ethics charges against Judge [[Beryl Howell]] bolstered [[Donald Trump]]'s narrative that he is facing biased justice. Even though these efforts have not (so far) led to sanctions, they represent a line of attack that could resurface, especially if Republicans gain more power over judicial oversight. **Other Ethics Issues:** Aside from the [[Elise Stefanik]] complaint, **no known ethics reprimands or disciplinary actions** involve [[Beryl Howell]]. She has never been accused of financial impropriety, personal misconduct, or anything of that nature. No Office of Inspector General inquiry has mentioned her; no party in a case (besides [[DOJ]] in the instance above) has formally moved to recuse her for cause. The focus remains squarely on **ideological bias**. It's important to note that judicial complaints for bias are rarely successful absent clear evidence (e.g., derogatory statements about a party, personal involvement with an issue, etc.). In [[Beryl Howell]]'s case, while her comments were unusual, the dismissal of the complaint suggests they were not deemed a clear ethics violation. Nonetheless, **the groundwork is laid for further challenges**. Should [[Beryl Howell]] continue to handle cases affecting [[Donald Trump]], defense attorneys might renew motions for her to recuse, citing the same speech and any new comments. And politically, if a narrative of "weaponized judges" gains traction, [[Beryl Howell]]'s name could surface in Congressional hearings or reports examining perceived judicial bias. ## Patterns and Potential Vulnerabilities A review of Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s record reveals several **patterns** and potential areas of **exposure** that opponents could exploit: - **Consistently Adverse Rulings to [[Donald Trump]]:** As detailed, [[Beryl Howell]]'s major decisions in cases involving [[Donald Trump]] or his allies have virtually _all_ gone against [[Donald Trump]]'s position -- from enforcing subpoenas against his aides, to denying privilege claims, to upholding congressional investigations of him, to blocking his executive actions. This one-sided track record allows critics to argue she is **not impartial**. While each decision can be legally justified, the cumulative effect suggests to some a predisposition. [[Donald Trump]]'s assertion that _["she would rule against me even if I had a perfect case"](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/truth-social-posts-april-23-2025)_ encapsulates this perception. In any future [[Donald Trump]]-related matter, defense counsel are almost certain to view [[Beryl Howell]] as a hostile forum. - **Democratic Political Roots:** [[Beryl Howell]]'s career prior to the bench was steeped in Democratic politics and policy. She was a **trusted aide to Sen. [[Patrick Leahy]]** for a decade, helping Democrats navigate contentious issues (Patriot Act, etc.). She was appointed to the court by [[Barack Obama]] at [[Patrick Leahy]]'s urging, and her social circle (as seen at the 2023 gala) includes prominent Democratic lawyers. These connections feed the narrative of [[Beryl Howell]] as part of a **Democratic legal network or "infrastructure."** [[Elise Stefanik]]'s complaint essentially painted [[Beryl Howell]] as a **partisan team player**, highlighting how [[Barack Obama]]'s AG ([[Loretta Lynch]]), [[Barack Obama]]'s counsel ([[Kathy Ruemmler]]), and [[Joe Biden]]'s DAG ([[Lisa Monaco]]) all sing her praises and count her as a friend. Additionally, [[Beryl Howell]]'s involvement in **[[Perkins Coie]]** litigation ties her to a firm deeply entwined with the Democratic Party (it represented [[Hillary Clinton]]'s campaign and hired Fusion GPS for the Steele dossier). Although [[Beryl Howell]] had no personal role in those political episodes, her ruling protecting [[Perkins Coie]] from [[Donald Trump]]'s order can be spun as "Judge [[Beryl Howell]] shields [[Hillary Clinton]]'s lawyers." In sum, her background and associations give ample material for **"guilt by association" attacks**. Unlike some judges who have balanced careers or bipartisan credentials, [[Beryl Howell]]'s résumé (aside from a [[George W. Bush]] appointment to the Sentencing Commission) is largely aligned with one side of the aisle. - **Aggressive Use of Judicial Authority:** [[Beryl Howell]] has not hesitated to push legal boundaries in service of accountability. Whether it was releasing sealed surveillance records in 2016 (a [pro-transparency move](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/meet-the-judge-who-just-released-200-secret-government-surveillance-requests/2016/09/23/4ddb1266-7b50-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html)), or breaking precedent by piercing attorney-client privilege in 2023 (a [pro-prosecution move](https://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-testimony-trump-attorney-piercing-attorney-client/story?id=97947297)), or issuing nationwide injunctions against a president's policies in 2025 -- [[Beryl Howell]] has been at the forefront of major, sometimes controversial judicial actions. This boldness makes her a hero to some, but it also leaves her vulnerable if any decision is seen as **overreach**. The **crime-fraud ruling** in particular was unprecedented in a presidential context; had the appellate court disagreed, it could have seriously damaged her reputation. (In fact, the D.C. Circuit affirmed it, but quietly and quickly.) The Supreme Court's stay of her order in the [[NLRB]] case is a reminder that her decisions can be reversed at the highest level, suggesting at least some of her reasoning may not hold up under scrutiny. Critics characterize her style as "ends justify the means," implying she's willing to bend rules (of privilege, executive power, etc.) to get to an outcome unfavorable to [[Donald Trump]] or his allies. If any of her high-impact rulings were ever found to be legally improper or done in bad faith, that would be a glaring vulnerability -- though so far, higher courts have not issued any such rebuke (the Supreme Court's stay was unsigned and not a final decision on merits yet). - **Perception of D.C. Bias:** [[Beryl Howell]] sits in the **District of Columbia**, which [[Donald Trump]] and Republicans often claim is a biased venue (due to its heavily Democratic jury pool and judiciary mostly appointed by Democrats). [[Beryl Howell]], as an [[Barack Obama]]-appointed D.C. judge who played a pivotal behind-the-scenes role in _every_ [[Donald Trump]] grand jury investigation in D.C., embodies this perceived problem for [[Donald Trump]]. Indeed, she presided over the secret proceedings that led to [[Donald Trump]]'s _indictment for attempting to overturn the election_ (the [[Jack Smith]] grand jury that issued charges in 2023). She is thus inextricably linked to what [[Donald Trump]] calls the "witch hunts." If [[Donald Trump]] or others seek to challenge the legitimacy of those investigations, they might scrutinize [[Beryl Howell]]'s management of the grand juries for any hint of irregularity or bias. (E.g., did she improperly encourage certain lines of inquiry? Did any of her public statements taint witnesses' willingness to cooperate? Such arguments would be speculative, but they could be aired in political forums.) The bottom line is that [[Beryl Howell]]'s **jurisdiction and timing** -- as chief judge during the formation of cases against [[Donald Trump]] -- position her as a ripe target when [[Donald Trump]] decries the _["weaponization"](https://www.thewellnews.com/political-news/republicans-pursue-trump-jurists-with-ethics-complaints/)_ of the federal government. - **Lack of Check on Speech:** Judges typically let their opinions speak for them and avoid public commentary. [[Beryl Howell]]'s willingness to speak out (as seen in her Jan.6 case lectures and the WWCDA speech) provides a **contrast that opponents can exploit**. They can argue that she lacks the temperament or judgement to refrain from **political commentary**, which could resonate in an impeachment context. Impeachment of judges is rare and usually tied to corruption or gross misconduct, not intemperate speech. However, Republicans could conceivably cite her speech as "evidence" of unfitness. At a minimum, it is a **soft spot**: she gave detractors material in her own voice. Future public statements will likely be carefully scrutinized; even a seemingly innocuous comment could be seized upon. [[Beryl Howell]]'s **Champion Award remarks** will likely dog her reputation in any discussion outside liberal circles, much like Justice [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]'s 2016 criticism of [[Donald Trump]] became a lasting footnote. - **No Personal Scandals (But Watch for Fishing Expeditions):** To date, there are **no known personal scandals** involving [[Beryl Howell]]. She is married to [[Michael Rosenfeld]], a [National Geographic TV producer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Howell), and there is no indication of anything untoward in her personal finances or behavior. However, in a charged political environment, opposition researchers might sift through her financial disclosures, speaking engagements, or family connections for any hint of impropriety. For example, is there any link between her husband's work and companies with cases in her court? (Unlikely relevant.) Did she ever have undisclosed contacts with people like [[Jack Smith]] or [[Andrew Weissmann]] outside of court? (No evidence of that.) Nonetheless, **inquisitive oversight committees** could probe whether her friendship with [[Lisa Monaco]] or others influenced any rulings -- even if just to create a headline. At this time, such allegations would be speculative. But the absence of traditional scandals means opponents will focus more on **ideological and procedural angles** to attack her. ## Prospects of Legal or Professional Consequences Though controversial, Judge [[Beryl Howell]] currently faces **no immediate legal jeopardy**. The question has been raised whether her conduct could amount to something like **criminal or civil liability, or grounds for removal**. Here is an analysis: - **Criminal Prosecution:** There is no indication that [[Beryl Howell]] has violated any criminal laws. For a judge to face criminal charges, one would typically be talking about bribery, fraud, obstruction of justice, or other egregious misconduct. Nothing of the sort is even alleged here. Ruling against a president, or making intemperate comments, is not a crime. Some extreme partisans have floated that _investigating_ [[Donald Trump]] or aiding such an investigation could be framed as some kind of conspiracy against rights, but such theories have no legal basis absent real evidence of a judge colluding to fabricate charges, etc. In short, **there is virtually zero likelihood** of any criminal case against [[Beryl Howell]]. Even a vindictive [[Donald Trump]] [[DOJ]] would have no legitimate predicate -- targeting a judge for her rulings would itself be an abuse of power. - **Civil Liability:** Judges have broad **immunity from civil suits** for actions taken in their judicial capacity. A Jan. 6 defendant or [[Donald Trump]] associate unhappy with her decisions cannot sue her personally for damages; such cases would be summarily dismissed. The only sliver of possibility would be if she engaged in something clearly outside her role (e.g., defamation in a speech). Conceivably, if one argues her WWCDA remarks defamed the Jan. 6 defendants as a group, it's still not a serious avenue -- judges speaking about cases are heavily protected by privilege, and no specific individual was named or slandered. Therefore, civil liability is also **not a realistic concern** for [[Beryl Howell]]. - **State Ethics Laws:** As a federal official, [[Beryl Howell]] is not subject to state ethics codes. She is governed by the **Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges** and oversight from the federal judiciary's internal processes. There is no state body that could punish her (unlike state judges who have commissions). So this is not applicable. - **Federal Misconduct/Impeachment:** The U.S. Constitution provides that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour," which means they can be removed by impeachment (House vote and Senate conviction) for misconduct. Historically, impeachments of judges have involved blatant wrongs like perjury, financial corruption, or abuse of power (e.g., Judge Porteous's impeachment for bribery, or Judge Hastings for perjury). Political bias or unpopular rulings have **never** been the sole basis for impeachment. If Republicans were to attempt this, they would likely cite **"abuse of power"** or **"bias unbecoming a judge"**. They might argue that [[Beryl Howell]]'s handling of [[Donald Trump]] cases demonstrates an inability to be fair -- effectively claiming that is "bad behaviour." However, this would be highly unprecedented and seen by others as an attack on judicial independence. It would also require a majority in the House and two-thirds of the Senate -- the latter threshold is very high. Unless an unforeseen scandal emerges, an impeachment of [[Beryl Howell]] would be widely viewed as _politically motivated_ and thus struggle to get bipartisan support. That said, the **mere threat of impeachment** can be a form of pressure. Notably, some on the right have begun discussing impeaching certain judges or prosecutors they see as part of anti-[[Donald Trump]] "lawfare." If a second [[Donald Trump]] term were to occur and conflicts between his administration and judges like [[Beryl Howell]] escalate, it's not impossible that articles of impeachment could be introduced as a political statement. While the outcome would almost certainly be acquittal (or the effort dying in committee), the process could tarnish [[Beryl Howell]]'s reputation and serve as a warning shot to others. - **Disbarment or Professional Discipline:** [[Beryl Howell]] is a sitting judge, not in active law practice, so typical bar discipline is not directly relevant. She remains a member of the bar (presumably in good standing) but it's exceedingly rare for a judge to be disbarred unless they were convicted of a crime. No such proceedings exist for her. If she retired and returned to practice, any prior misconduct could be reviewed by bar authorities, but again there's no evidence of actual misconduct beyond the partisan complaints discussed. So, disbarment is **not on the table**. In summary, **Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s greatest risks are reputational and institutional, not legal**. The most tangible consequence she has faced is the embarrassment (and distraction) of ethics complaints and recusal motions. These can undermine her effectiveness by casting a cloud over her impartiality in the public eye. They also might make her or her colleagues more cautious in handling politically sensitive matters. But unless new facts emerge, she is unlikely to face formal removal or penalties. The D.C. Circuit's quick dismissal of the [[Elise Stefanik]] complaint and [[Beryl Howell]]'s own bristling defense against recusal suggest the judiciary stands by her. However, the **political atmosphere** means [[Beryl Howell]] will probably continue to be used as a symbol in the "weaponization" narrative. For example, House Republicans have already formed committees to investigate alleged politicization in [[DOJ]] and have cited judges' actions as part of that. It would not be surprising if reports or hearings mention [[Beryl Howell]] by name. Any opportunity to call her to testify (unlikely, as judges rarely testify except on judicial administration) could be seized to grill her on her remarks -- something the judicial branch would fiercely resist. Furthermore, if [[Donald Trump]] or others are ultimately convicted in cases [[Beryl Howell]] had a hand in, defense teams might raise her involvement in appeals (arguing, say, that her pretrial rulings or oversight tainted the process). Even if such arguments lack merit, they could be aired in court filings and public discourse. ## Conclusion Judge [[Beryl Howell]] is by all accounts a **formidable legal figure** with decades of experience at the intersection of law, policy, and technology. Her seven years as Chief Judge in D.C. coincided with historic challenges -- from a domestic insurrection to unprecedented investigations of a former president -- and she approached those challenges with an assertive, often uncompromising judicial philosophy. **For the right, [[Beryl Howell]] has become a prime example of the "DC Democrat judge" they warn against:** appointed by [[Barack Obama]], mentored by [[Patrick Leahy]], allied with officials like [[Loretta Lynch]] and [[Lisa Monaco]], and unrelenting in rulings that favor Democratic-led inquiries into [[Donald Trump]]. They view her as an embodiment of institutional bias, citing her own words about "big lies" and fascism. **For the left and many in the legal community**, [[Beryl Howell]] is seen as a principled, hard-working judge who stood up for the rule of law, enforcing accountability equally even at the highest levels of power. They point out that her decisions have generally been upheld and that her sharp criticisms of Jan. 6 offenders were echoed by many judges (including some GOP appointees). From an opposition research standpoint, Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s **vulnerabilities lie in perceptions**: perceptions of partisanship, of intemperance, and of overstepping her role. These perceptions can be leveraged to **undermine public confidence** in cases she touched. Any effort to reverse or pardon the outcomes of those cases might involve portraying [[Beryl Howell]] and her D.C. colleagues as having been unjust or biased from the start -- laying a foundation to justify extraordinary remedies. Additionally, should there be a push for judicial reforms or reassignments (for instance, removing certain judges from particular case rotations), [[Beryl Howell]]'s name could surface as someone whom reformers (or retaliators) want sidelined. In the end, the facts show [[Beryl Howell]] as a **highly competent, if occasionally outspoken, judge** who has not shrunk from taking on [[Donald Trump]] and his allies in court. This makes her a consequential figure, one whose record will likely be scrutinized for years in debates over the politicization of justice. Any **"points of leverage"** against her are mostly political: highlighting her friendships, her speeches, and her pattern of rulings to argue that she is biased. Legally, those are weak points; politically, however, they can be powerful in rallying opposition. **Judge [[Beryl Howell]]'s legacy** will largely be defined by how history views the investigations of [[Donald Trump]]. If those investigations are vindicated, she may be lauded as a judge who helped uphold accountability. If they are discredited, she will likely be remembered (at least by [[Donald Trump]]'s supporters) as a symbol of overreach. As of now, [[Beryl Howell]] remains on the bench (in senior status) and could still hear cases -- including possibly any civil suits related to Jan. 6 or [[Donald Trump]] -- so her story with the former president may not be over. What is clear is that [[Beryl Howell]] has already made a mark as one of the most influential (and polarizing) jurists in the [[Donald Trump]]-era legal saga, and her conduct provides ample material for **both praise and critique** in the ongoing battle over the impartiality of the American justice system.