US judge boycotting Columbia law clerks asked to recuse from protest case
By Nate Raymond
Sept 13 (Reuters) -A federal judge in North Dakota has been asked to recuse himself from a lawsuit pursued by current and former Columbia Law School faculty concerning protests over the Dakota Access oil pipeline after he and 12 other judges said they would boycott hiring law clerks from the school.
U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor in Bismarck and several other judges appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump in May said they would not hire Columbia graduates as clerks because its New York campus had become an "incubator of bigotry" during pro-Palestinian demonstrations over Israel's war in Gaza.
In a motion on Thursday, lawyers affiliated with Columbia Law School's Initiative for a Just Society argued that the boycott showed Traynor could no longer impartially preside over a case they are pursuing concerning the closure of part of a highway during 2016-2017 protests over the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
"A reasonable observer would harbor doubts about Judge Traynor's impartiality in adjudicating any case represented by Columbia Law School faculty," the lawyers argued.
They said it was "not just any case" either, as it concerned a law enforcement response to protest activities, which the plaintiffs contend was overzealous.
They contrasted those claims with the letter Traynor signed, which called for more severe enforcement against those who participated in the highly-publicized demonstrations on Columbia's campus in the spring.
Traynor did not respond to a request for comment.
The motion to have him recuse himself from the case is one of the first known to have been filed nationally based on the 13 judges' Columbia clerk hiring boycott.
The New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Judicial Council in August dismissed a misconduct complaint against eight of the judges in the boycott, including U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho, by a prisoner who accused them of political bias.
The proposed class action was filed in 2018 by two members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and a priest in2020 against various state officials; Morton County, where the tribe's reservation is located; and TigerSwan, a private security company for pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners.
The lawsuit alleged that a five-month closure of a part of the highway during large-scale protests against the Dakota Access pipeline unduly restricted travel and violated the plaintiffs' free speech and religious rights.
The plaintiffs' pro bono lawyers include Noah Smith-Drelich, a former lecturer at Columbia now at Chicago-Kent College of Law, and Bernard Harcourt, a Columbia professor and founding director of its Initiative for a Just Society.
Traynor has presided over the case since 2020. While he dismissed claims against various state officials last year, the case remains pending against Morton County and TigerSwan, which deny wrongdoing.
The case is Thunderhawk v. County of Morton, North Dakota, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, No. 18-cv-00212.
For the plaintiffs: Noah Smith-Drelich of Chicago-Kent College of Law, Amy Knight of Phillips Black and Bernard Harcourt of Columbia Law School
For Morton County: Randall Bakke of Bakke Grinolds Wiederholt
For Tigerswan: Aubrey Zuger of Fredrikson & Byron
Read more:
US judges cleared of misconduct over Columbia clerk hiring boycott
US judiciary to consider new ethical guidance for law clerk hiring
Conservative US judges boycott Columbia grads over campus Gaza protests
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
