Chief Judge Howell's Private Communications with DOJ Violated Judicial Impartiality Standards
Source: Hans Mahncke. "New Document Shows Chief Judge Howell Privately Endorsed Jack Smith’s Get-Trump Lawfare." March 27, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that Chief Judge Howell secretly told prosecutors she loved their legal strategy against Trump, even though she had publicly criticized that same strategy to Trump's lawyers. This private endorsement violated rules about judges staying neutral and not secretly helping one side.
Conclusion
Chief Judge Beryl Howell engaged in improper ex parte communications that compromised judicial impartiality by privately endorsing Jack Smith's prosecution strategy against Trump
Premises
- A DOJ briefing document shows Howell privately told prosecutors she 'liked' and 'loved' their omnibus approach to executive privilege litigation
- During a public September 2022 hearing, Howell expressed skepticism about consolidation, telling Trump's lawyers these issues were 'too particularized to be grouped together'
- Howell's private endorsement of the DOJ's strategy directly contradicted her public statements to Trump's legal team
- These communications lacked formal documentation, court reporters, or notification to Trump's lawyers
- The language of 'liked' and 'loved' demonstrates personal enthusiasm for one party's strategy, violating judicial neutrality standards
- Howell has a pattern of anti-Trump statements and actions that raise questions about her impartiality
- By endorsing the omnibus approach, Howell gave prosecutors a fast track to resolve privilege disputes before her tenure ended
Assumptions
- Ex parte communications about litigation strategy substance are improper even in grand jury contexts
- Judicial impartiality requires consistent positions between public hearings and private communications
- The DOJ briefing document accurately represents what Howell said
- A judge's enthusiasm for one side's strategy inherently compromises neutrality
- Past anti-Trump statements indicate bias in current proceedings