Recognizing the Judges and Lawyers Upholding Integrity
To: Ms. Michelle Behnke
President
American Bar Association
321 N. Clark St.
Chicago, IL 60654
Dear President Behnke:
Last year I wrote suggesting that the nine law firms that capitulated to the Trump ukase—offering nearly $1 billion in time rather than risk exclusion from federal buildings—be called the “Quisling Nine.”
Vidkun Quisling headed the Norwegian government during World War II and collaborated with occupying Nazis; Churchill turned his name into shorthand for political betrayal.
A year after, perspective helps. Some firms resisted, went to court, and suffered no reprisals. They deserve recognition. The same is true—emphatically—of our federal judiciary.
In Minnesota, our federal district court has been tested repeatedly in recent months. Following the so-called Metro Surge, citizens and residents were detained, some transported out of state, some deprived of phones and identification. Habeas corpus—the Great Writ—exists precisely for such circumstances. Its lineage traces to the Magna Carta, where the English Crown was reminded that detention requires lawful justification. The principle has not gone out of style in Minnesota.
Our federal court has been inundated with habeas petitions. In open court, attorneys for the United States have at times asserted they could not comply with judicial orders because of staffing shortages. One overworked assistant U.S. attorney reportedly remarked, “The system sucks, this job sucks,” explaining her inability to comply promptly. She was later terminated. Candor remains professionally risky.
The judiciary’s response has been measured but firm. Judges have reminded counsel that while private litigants do not receive extensions because compliance is inconvenient, neither does the government. When Minnesota residents were taken to Texas against their will and abandoned without phones or IDs, a federal judge ordered restoration—or contempt charges. That is not activism. That is what courts are for.
The entire bench has acted with unity. The chief judge catalogued 96 violations of court orders by this administration. Other judges have initiated or threatened contempt proceedings. The message has been simple: Court orders are not advisory opinions.
Nor can the Minnesota federal court be dismissed as ideologically aligned. Four judges were appointed by Democratic presidents, three by Republicans—including two appointed by President Trump. No serious practitioner would describe the Minnesota court as extreme. What unites these judges is not party affiliation but fidelity to the Constitution and due process.
Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78 that lifetime tenure protects judicial independence by insulating judges from political pressure. Without it, one doubts that Brown v. Board of Education would have been possible. Judges who must face political elections rarely display such fortitude. Lifetime appointment is not a perk; it is a structural safeguard.
Recent Supreme Court decisions illustrate the same principle. In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the Court invalidated an unconstitutional effort to impose tariffs unilaterally. Chief Justice Roberts—appointed by a Republican president—reaffirmed that tariff authority rests with Congress. Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence emphasized limits on executive overreach regardless of political party. The separation of powers is not partisan; it is structural. It restrains presidents of every persuasion.
Lawyers, too, have choices.
There are lawyers who deserve special mention, and chief among them is Joe Thompson, the former acting U.S. attorney for Minnesota. Thompson, nobody’s caricature of a radical, led significant anti-fraud investigations and built a reputation for professionalism. After Renee Good was shot and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, Thompson expected routine cooperation with the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. In incidents of this gravity, joint investigation is customary and essential to public confidence. Instead, Thompson was instructed not to cooperate with state authorities and to open a criminal investigation into Good’s widow. He concluded those directives violated his ethical and professional obligations. Rather than comply, he resigned. Ultimately, 13 attorneys in his office followed suit.
Quislings would have stayed; they did not. Their resignations were not theatrical. They were acts of professional conscience. Lawyers swear to “support” not to a person or an administration, but to the Constitution. That oath occasionally requires sacrifice. It should not require heroism. Yet in times like these, quiet integrity can look heroic.
The independence of the judiciary and the ethical obligations of lawyers are intertwined. Courts depend on advocates who respect lawful process, and advocates depend on courts willing to enforce it. When either side falters, constitutional government erodes. When both stand firm, the structure holds.
Read more from this issue
Many federal judges are not quislings. Many federal prosecutors are not either. They upheld their oaths under pressure. That is worth acknowledging—and defending vigorously.
Respectfully,
Vance K. Opperman
Proud to Be an Attorney
License #0082703
