A federal judge appointed by former President Ronald Reagan announced in an op-ed published Sunday that he has resigned from the bench, giving up his lifetime appointment so he can speak openly against President Donald Trump, whom he accuses of undermining judicial independence and using the law to reward allies and target opponents.
Mark Wolf, appointed by Reagan in 1985, wrote in The Atlantic that he had expected to remain on the court for the rest of his life but felt compelled to step down.
“My reason is simple: I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. 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,” he wrote.
“This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he added.
The former U.S. District Court judge for the District of Massachusetts noted that he began his public service career at the Department of Justice in 1974, not long after the Watergate scandal that brought down then-GOP President Richard Nixon.
Wolf served under Attorney General Edward Levi during the Ford administration, crediting Levi with shaping his understanding of the rule of law and the importance of pursuing justice in a nonpartisan manner.
Wolf’s successor was chosen and nominated after he assumed senior status in 2013, and the seat was formally filled by Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, in 2014.
“I hope to be a spokesperson for embattled judges who, consistent with the code of conduct, feel they cannot speak candidly to the American people,” he told The New York Times.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson countered Wolf’s commentary in a statement to Fox News Digital, noting that judges who “want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench.”
“Here’s the reality: with over 20 Supreme Court victories, the Trump Administration’s policies have been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings,” Jackson said.
“And any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so,” she added.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended a short-term order allowing the Trump administration to continue withholding full food stamp payments for November, a move aimed at buying time as Congress worked toward reopening the federal government, which happened a day later.
The decision came as part of a fast-moving emergency appeal over Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, which provide aid to more than 40 million Americans. Several related lawsuits in lower courts could soon be rendered moot if lawmakers reach an agreement to end the shutdown, CNN reported.
For now, the “administrative stay” issued by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson last Friday remains in place, blocking a lower-court order that would have required the administration to deliver full federal food benefits. In a brief unsigned order Tuesday, the Court said the stay would be extended through the end of the day Thursday. Jackson dissented from the extension.
The spiraling legal fight over food stamps has become one of the most tangible impacts of the shutdown, alongside widespread flight cancellations and government service disruptions.
Advocates for SNAP recipients told the Court earlier Tuesday that millions of Americans have “now gone ten days without the help they need to afford food.” They warned that children and families across the country are struggling to eat as the dispute drags on.
