U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin is facing potential disciplinary action following a dispute with Georgetown University over its diversity, equity and inclusion policies, marking the latest controversy surrounding the Trump administration official.
A filing made Tuesday by Washington, D.C.’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel accuses Martin of professional misconduct tied to a letter he sent to Georgetown earlier this year. In that letter, Martin warned the university that it could face legal consequences if it did not abandon its DEI initiatives.
The disciplinary filing alleges that Martin, acting in his role as a government official, attempted to pressure the school over its policies and later sought to avoid oversight from the body responsible for regulating attorneys in the District.
The matter could now move toward formal professional conduct hearings, which could lead to sanctions or, in the most serious outcome, the loss of Martin’s law license.
Martin’s dispute with Georgetown began in February when he sent a letter to the university stating that he would refuse to hire any interns or attorneys coming from the school. He later escalated the warning, suggesting the university’s response could “bear directly” on its nonprofit status.
Hamilton Fox, the D.C. disciplinary counsel responsible for investigating attorney conduct, argued that Martin’s actions crossed a constitutional line.
“Mr. Martin knew or should have known that, as a government official, his conduct violated the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States,” Fox wrote in the filing.
Fox further accused Martin of attempting to use government authority to pressure the university over its academic positions.
“Acting in his official capacity and speaking on behalf of the government, he used coercion to punish or suppress a disfavored viewpoint, the teaching and promotion of ‘DEI,’” Fox wrote. The filing also notes that Martin never clearly defined what he meant by the term in his communications with the school.
According to the filing, Martin repeatedly declined to cooperate with the disciplinary inquiry once it began.
The Office of Disciplinary Counsel first contacted Martin in March of last year after receiving a complaint about his conduct and asked him to provide a written response the following month.
Instead of answering the inquiry directly, Martin wrote a letter to judges on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which oversees bar matters. In that letter, he said he would not respond to the disciplinary counsel’s investigation, criticized what he described as the office’s “uneven behavior,” and requested a meeting with the court’s judges to discuss the issue.
Martin also copied the White House counsel on the letter, stating that he was including the office “for informational purposes because of the importance of getting this issue addressed.”
Chief Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby declined Martin’s request for a meeting and referred the matter back to the disciplinary counsel.
Shortly afterward, Martin escalated the dispute by asking the judge to suspend Fox and open an investigation into him.
Fox wrote that Martin’s request itself violated professional conduct rules because attorneys are prohibited from contacting judges directly about their own disciplinary cases.
The controversy surrounding Martin comes after a series of other disputes involving the former U.S. attorney nominee. His nomination failed to advance in the Senate following multiple controversies, and he was later removed from his role leading the Justice Department’s Weaponization Working Group.
Martin has also faced scrutiny within the Justice Department for other actions, including efforts tied to an investigation into mortgage fraud.
In an unusual move, the department launched a grand jury in Maryland to examine whether Martin improperly deputized individuals outside the Justice Department to assist with probes involving political figures, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
The Justice Department, however, pushed back against the disciplinary action, arguing it reflects political bias.
“The DC bar’s attempt to target and punish those serving President Trump while refusing to investigate or act against actual ethical violations that were committed by Biden and Obama administration attorneys is a clear indication of this partisan organization’s agenda,” a department spokesperson said in a statement.
As the disciplinary process moves forward, the case adds another layer of political and legal tension in Washington, where disputes over government authority, free speech and institutional power continue to spill beyond policy debates and into the courts and legal profession itself.
