Trump Tries to Disqualify His DC Judge Based on Her Comments in Other Jan. 6 Cases

Former President Donald Trump's attorneys filed a motion on Monday seeking to recuse the Washington, D.C.-based federal judge presiding over his federal election-interference case.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan is known for harshly punishing convicted Jan. 6 rioters, handing down prison sentences longer than prosecutors requested, and Trump's motion argued that some of her comments during other sentencing proceedings could cause the public to believe that she is biased during a "highly charged political season."

"Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned," Trump's attorney John F. Lauro wrote in a 9-page motion. "Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying."

Trump has lashed out at Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee, as "biased" before, but his attorneys stop short of arguing that. Instead, they note that the standard for recusal “is not the reality of bias or prejudice but its appearance.”

"Now is not the time for the American people to second-guess a judge’s impartiality," Lauro and his co-counsel wrote. "Rather, the Court should ensure the public remains 'unwavering[ly] confiden[t]' in its decisions and its commitment to the fair and impartial administration of justice."

Chutkan herself will decide whether she must recuse under the applicable legal standard. Trump previously tried, and failed, to win the recusal of the New York judge presiding over his hush-money case in Manhattan, where he stands accused of falsifying business records in secret payments to pornographic film actress Stormy Daniels.

They argue that two of Chutkan's addresses during sentencing proceedings undermine that goal.

Before sentencing ex-Ohio school employee Christine Priola, Chutkan criticized her for her “blind loyalty” to “one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” 

That quote circulated around MAGA-friendly social media before making its way to Trump, who highlighted Chutkan's remarks on Truth Social on Aug. 14, 2023.

“She obviously wants me behind bars,” Trump wrote then. “VERY BIASED & UNFAIR!”

But Trump's lawyers do not argue that Chutkan is biased, only that the remarks make it appear so.

"Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome," the motion states. "The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially, or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump."

At the time of Priola’s sentencing, Chutkan observed, scores of criminal defendants in Jan. 6 cases explicitly asserted Trump inspired them to take their actions — and they were the ones going to prison for it. 

For Trump's legal team, Chutkan's remarks conveyed a simpler and "inescapable" interpretation: namely, "President Trump is free, but should not be."

"As an apparent prejudgment of guilt, these comments are disqualifying standing alone," they wrote. "However, this was not the first time Judge Chutkan expressed such an opinion."

Trump's lawyers contend that Chutkan made similar remarks during the Jan. 6-related sentencing of Robert Scott Palmer in December 2021.

"Mr. Palmer -- you have made a very good point, one that has been made before -- that the people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged," Chutkan remarked during those proceedings, according to the motion.

In the same quoted transcript, Chutkan made clear to distance herself from those views.

"That is not this court’s position," Chutkan said. "I don’t charge anybody. I don’t negotiate plea offers. I don’t make charging decisions. I sentence people who have pleaded guilty or have been convicted. The issue of who has or has not been charged is not before me. I don’t have any influence on that. I have my opinions, but they are not relevant."

Despite that disclaimer, Trump's lawyers argued that her general agreement with Palmer's message creates a "perception of prejudgment incompatible with our justice system."

Trump wants the case to be reassigned to a different district court judge.