On Wednesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the D.C. bar disciplinary system in relation to proceedings targeting former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark. The suit aligns with President Trump's executive order titled "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government" and his presidential memorandum on "Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts."
The suit names as defendants the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, D.C. disciplinary officials, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, the D.C. Court of Appeals, and the District of Columbia itself, and seeks to halt disciplinary proceedings against Clark arising from his role in post-2020 election disputes.
Here is how we dared greatly today. https://t.co/MYXNTPIJUM
— Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. (@ASGWoodward) May 13, 2026
Clark served as Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, and as acting head of DOJ’s Civil Division in the first Trump administration. Clark was one of several individuals charged alongside Trump in the Georgia criminal case brought by Fani Willis' office. Those charges were subsequently dismissed, and Clark was granted a pardon by President Trump in November 2025.
The disciplinary case against him centers on his involvement in a draft DOJ letter concerning alleged election irregularities in Georgia after the 2020 election. The DOJ complaint raises several key points regarding that letter:
- the letter was never sent
- it was marked “pre-decisional and deliberative”
- it reflected internal Executive Branch discussions
And ultimately, DOJ leadership rejected the proposal set forth in Clark's letter. Nevertheless, Clark was brought up on disciplinary proceedings, and, in July 2025, the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility recommended that he lose his law license. Clark has appealed that recommendation, and that appeal remains pending.
The DOJ lawsuit asserts three primary legal claims:
- Count I — alleges unconstitutional regulation of the federal government under the Supremacy Clause.
- Count Two — alleges discriminatory treatment of federal attorneys compared to other lawyers.
- Count Three — alleges unconstitutional interference with Executive Branch authority under Article II.
DOJ contends that D.C. authorities are improperly regulating federal executive functions with these disciplinary proceedings. The rationale here is that states and local entities cannot punish federal officials for actions taken as part of their official duties, particularly when we're talking about internal legal deliberations within the Executive Branch. Otherwise, this essentially would allow local bar authorities to punish executive lawyers for internal legal advice and chill candid discussions within DOJ, thus interfering with presidential authority.
To illustrate the problem, the complaint contrasts the treatment received by former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith from the D.C. bar disciplinary authorities. Clinesmith, of course, pleaded guilty to altering an email tied to the Carter Page FISA investigation, but received only a retroactive one-year suspension rather than disbarment. Meanwhile, Clark faces a recommendation of disbarment over an unsent internal draft document and internal disagreements within DOJ.
Ultimately, the DOJ is requesting the court to declare the disciplinary proceedings against Clark unconstitutional, to block any further disciplinary action against him tied to his government service, and to permanently enjoin D.C. authorities from pursuing similar actions.
RELATED: New House Doc Dump Reveals More Weaponization of Biden-Era DOJ
Trump's Big Win: 'Life Support' Case in Georgia Officially Flatlines
There's more to the complaint, which you can peruse here, including allegations and examples of bias on the part of Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler. (The evidence for this abounds.)
Read even more of the biased social media posts made by D.C. Bar Assistant Disciplinary Counsel Jack Metzler.
— Zack Smith (@tzsmith) May 14, 2026
Many of these were made WHILE he has been seeking to disbar Jeff and other Trump allies.https://t.co/TAGeYQFnDG
In conjunction with the suit, the DOJ issued a press release, which reads in pertinent part:
"As our complaint and history make clear, the DC Bar has long acted as a blatantly partisan arm of leftist causes. No more,” said Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.
“President Trump promised to put an end to the weaponization of the legal process, and today’s lawsuit against the D.C. Bar makes good on that promise,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. “The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree, and Federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”
Just last week, the Justice Department filed a statement of interest in support of former interim United States Attorney Ed Martin, who is seeking to have the D.C. Bar’s unlawful prosecution of him heard in a neutral Federal tribunal.
As three former Attorneys General recently recognized, the D.C. Bar’s efforts to discipline Justice Department attorneys “for making recommendations, factual assertions, and providing legal advice during confidential internal agency deliberations on law enforcement and sensitive public policy” are “improper and constitutionally impermissible.”
The case has been assigned to Judge Richard Leon, a George W. Bush appointee. You can bet we'll be keeping a keen eye on any developments in the suit.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member