Senate approval of Eric Tung came as a longtime federal judge announced his retirement, writing that he could no longer stay silent about what he called a presidential assault on the rule of law; the judge laid out his reasons in an op-ed, drew sharp criticism from conservatives, and cited concerns including the indictment of a state attorney general and the reversal of a major civil judgment.
The Senate recently confirmed Eric Tung to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a move that continues the Trump administration’s effort to reshape the federal judiciary. At the same time, another federal judge has declared he is stepping down, saying public limits on judges prevent him from responding to what he views as broader threats. That judge’s op-ed generated a swift political reaction and became a flashpoint for competing narratives about law and politics.
U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf published an opinion piece explaining his decision to retire, opening with a stark line: “My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom.” He argued that the current use of legal power has shifted toward partisan ends, an accusation that strikes at the heart of how conservatives and Republicans generally view impartial justice.
Wolf elaborated on his view, writing, “President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment,” and adding that the pattern runs counter to his decades of public service. He framed the problem as an assault on norms he says he has defended for more than half a century. “[t]he White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out,” he wrote.
That candid assessment did not land well with conservative lawyers and commentators, who questioned both his timing and his claims about partisanship. One critic pointed to Wolf’s record and political connections in Massachusetts, suggesting his portrayal of himself as a Reagan-era conservative did not match how he was chosen for the bench. The backlash highlights how quickly a judge’s retirement statement can be used as political ammunition in a tense judicial confirmation environment.
“Good riddance, Mark,” Davis wrote in a social media post. “Mark is deceiving everyone by pretending he’s a Reagan Republican. Mark was hand-selected by both of his Massachusetts Democrat home-state senators.” That same critic asked a pointed question: “If Trump is so lawless, why has he won over 80% of his petitions to the Supreme Court’s emergency docket this year?” The line of argument was meant to undercut claims that the current administration is operating outside legal bounds.
Wolf singled out the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James as one example of what he sees as politically charged legal action, saying the move looked motivated by partisan aims. His critics note that his piece focused on selective instances while omitting other legal reversals that cut against her case. In particular, a New York appeals court recently set aside a large civil judgment against former President Trump that had been widely reported and debated.
Justice David Friedman’s opinion in that appeals decision included sharp language about the motivations behind the civil case, saying the “ultimate goal was not market hygiene … but political hygiene, ending with the derailment of President Trump’s political career and the destruction of his real estate business.” Conservatives seized on that passage to argue that political motives have cut both ways and that accusations of partisan lawyering deserve scrutiny from all sides.
The episode underscores the larger fight over how judges speak and act outside courtroom walls, and who gets to call political motives when legal cases touch on high-profile figures. Republicans who backed Tung’s confirmation are likely to frame the judge’s retirement as symptomatic of a media-friendly, partisan critique of law enforcement that ignores counterarguments. Meanwhile, Democrats and some jurists will point to the concerns raised by Wolf as evidence that legal norms are under strain.
As the White House prepares to nominate another candidate for the federal bench, the debate over this retirement will stay in play. The competing headlines — confirmation of a conservative appeals court nominee and a retiring judge’s public indictment of partisan legal tactics — will be used by both sides to press their narratives. What remains clear is that judicial appointments and departures are no longer quiet institutional shifts but central elements in a broader political battle over the role of law in public life.
