'Definitely forbidden': Experts daunted as judge's Trump fidelity suggests alarming plan
President Donald Trump's former criminal defense attorney is raising ethical concerns from his current perch on a federal appeals court.
After Inauguration Day, Emil Bove jumped from being Trump's personal lawyer to a top position at the Department of Justice, and then ascended to the bench on the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in September. Legal experts are concerned that his loyalty to the president remains undiminished, reported Politico.
"Bove has taken a handful of actions that many legal experts say are unorthodox — if not unethical — for a sitting judge," the website reported. "Within the span of a week, he publicly supported the president’s pardon of a convicted drug trafficker and attended a Trump rally."
Legal ethicists say Bove's actions were both inappropriate and easily avoided.
“I think both acts create an appearance that he’s running for higher office – i.e, the Supreme Court,” said Bruce Green, a professor of legal ethics at Fordham Law School. “Now, that doesn’t distinguish him from a lot of other conservative judges who’d like to be put on the Supreme Court, but it creates that impression.”
In December, Bove publicly endorsed Trump's pardon of former Honduran leader Juan Orlando Hernández — who Bove himself had prosecuted years earlier.
"I am proud to have previously represented and served President Trump, and I completely trust and respect his judgment," he told The New York Times, violating the standard judicial practice of refraining from public political commentary.
Experts say that Bove's comments on that matter were inappropriate and unnecessary.
“In my conversations with judges, there’s an enormous source of pride that you can be around the table with a bunch of federal judges, and you have no idea what the political inclinations of those judges are, because they really think of themselves as judges and not as as political actors, even though no one is disputing that they have political views [or] that in close cases — in politically charged cases — those views will influence their thinking,” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University Law School professor who studies judicial conduct and ethics.
“It’s just that they are not carrying water for the president that appointed them.”
Days later, Bove attended a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, sitting prominently near the stage while the president attacked undocumented immigrants and criticized former President Joe Biden, which prompted the nonpartisan Fix the Court organization to file a judicial misconduct complaint.
"Going to that rally and sitting there was definitely forbidden," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers.
Other legal scholars questioned whether violations occurred technically, though most acknowledged the appearance was deeply problematic. One expert noted the judicial code isn't "crystal clear," suggesting disciplinary action against a life-tenured federal judge remains unlikely.
“I think attending a political rally is something that judges should not do because it compromises their appearance of impartiality," Green said. "But I didn’t think it was specifically forbidden, and therefore it’s a bit of a judgment call for the [chief] judge.”
The controversy reflects broader concerns about judicial independence. Geyh emphasized that federal judges traditionally take pride in obscuring political leanings — a standard Bove appears to have abandoned entirely, openly conflating his judicial role with partisan loyalty to the president who appointed him.
“It is an openly partisan event, and Bove is fully aware of that, and the overriding ethical directive is that you act at all times in a manner that preserves public confidence in your impartiality,” Geyh said. “Is Judge Bove engaging in a political act by participating in this? It’s kind of hard to argue that he’s not.”