Ed Martin, Trump's pardon attorney, is claiming executive privilege and Article II authority to evade D.C. Bar misconduct charges stemming from his use of government power to threaten Georgetown University over DEI programs.
In February 2025, while serving as interim U.S. Attorney for D.C., Martin sent letters to Georgetown Law Center claiming a “whistleblower” reported DEI instruction. Without waiting for a response, he banned his office from employing Georgetown students. He then threatened the university's tax-exempt status and its nearly $1 billion in federal funding. Georgetown's dean called it “an attack on the University's mission as a Jesuit and Catholic institution.”
After a retired judge filed a disciplinary complaint, Martin did not respond through proper channels. Instead, he sent ex parte letters directly to judges on the D.C. Court of Appeals, demanding they fire the disciplinary counsel and dismiss the case. The chief judge told him this was improper. Martin ignored her and wrote again.
On March 6, 2026, D.C. Disciplinary Counsel filed two formal counts: violating his oath by using coercion to punish Georgetown for a disfavored viewpoint (First and Fifth Amendment violations), and improperly communicating ex parte with judges during a proceeding.
On April 8, Martin filed a blockbuster 25-page response raising 40 separate defenses plus a federal court action to remove the case from D.C. disciplinary proceedings. His central claim: “The President's exercise of his authorities under the Take Care Clause through his U.S. Attorneys cannot be interfered with” — arguing that executive branch attorneys are “bound by the President's decisions” and that disciplining them violates Article II.
The same maneuver was tried by Jeffrey Clark (who attempted to overturn the 2020 election) and failed. Judge Contreras ruled that “Congress has committed the regulation of federal government attorneys to the states and courts where they practice.”
An embarrassing detail: Martin's own filings confused the D.C. Bar, the Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and the Board on Professional Responsibility — three separate entities. The disciplinary counsel replied: “You appear to be under the impression that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel is a part of the D.C. Bar. We are not.”