Oregon
Latest Coverage
See all articles
Oregon judge married to US rep asked to recuse himself from Trump troop deployment case
U.S. Justice Department lawyers Thursday asked federal Judge Michael H. Simon to recuse himself from hearing Oregon’s challenge to President Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to Portland to avoid “the appearance of partiality,” considering his wife, a U.S. congresswoman, has spoken out against the activation.
U.S. Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat, stood last Saturday with Gov. Tina Kotek and Mayor Keith Wilson at a news conference in Portland to blast Trump for saying the city needed military help to quell protests at the ICE building in “War ravaged” Portland.
Bonamici released a statement that day that said: “Donald Trump is lying. I was at the ICE facility two days ago and saw a few peaceful protesters, not a ‘siege.’
“We do not want or need federal troops in Portland,” said Bonamici, who represents much of the west metro area. “The Trump administration is using lies and delusions to try to justify turning the military against US citizens. It’s illegal, dangerous, and outrageous.”
The federal government’s recusal request which is titled, “Defendants’ Suggestion of Recusal,” pointed out that Bonamici has suggested the Trump administration’s federalization of Oregon National Guard troops could result in “violations of law.”
The Justice Department lawyers also noted that Bonamici has blasted Trump’s actions on social media, and has “interfaced” in her official role with each defendant in the suit. Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem are named as defendants.
The day after the news conference, Trump and Hegseth informed the state that the federal government was ordering the Guard into federal service in Portland for 60 days. The state hours later joined with the city to file a lawsuit challenging the deployment and then filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the troops’ arrival.
Simon has set a 10 a.m. Friday hearing to consider the emergency motion for a restraining order to block the deployment.
Jean Lin, special litigation counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the government recognizes “that Judge Simon and Representative Bonamici speak for themselves, not for each other.”
“Nonetheless, the unique factual, legal, and political role that Judge Simon’s spouse has played in the central events of this lawsuit may create the appearance of partiality,” she wrote in the recusal request. “… The significant public interest in this lawsuit likewise makes it vital that the Court endeavors to ensure public confidence in the outcome of litigation by removing any possible perception of partiality.”
Simon has served on the U.S. District Court bench in Portland for 14 years, nominated by former President Barack Obama in 2011. The court assigns the cases on a randomized schedule.
Attorney Steven Kantor, dean emeritus at Lewis & Clark Law School, said a judge’s recusal requires “an overwhelming conflict.”
Simon may reject the government’s request, saying that he is able as a judge to decide the case based on the facts and arguments presented in court and is not influenced by his wife’s political activities or stance, Kantor said.
He added, “But of course it will be used politically.”
Lewis and Clark Law School professor Tung Yin said recusal generally occurs if judges have a financial stake in a matter before them or have personal knowledge of events in the subject in court.
Yin referred to a case when another judge’s impartiality was questioned because of his wife’s job.
In 2019, proponents of California’s law banning same-sex marriage asked a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to recuse himself from the case because his wife, Ramona Ripston, was the executive director of the ACLU of Southern California and a strong opponent of Proposition 8, a state ballot initiative to add a new section to the state Constitution that said, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The ACLU was not a party to the appeal.
That judge, Stephen Reinhardt, considered the motion and ruled that he would not recuse himself, saying he could rule impartially.
According to federal law, judges must disqualify themselves in any proceeding in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including if they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, personal knowledge of disputed evidence, or if they or their spouse or any child in their household has a financial interest in the matter.
The law also holds that judges should step aside if they or their spouse are a party to the proceeding, act as a lawyer in the proceeding, are known “to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome” of the proceeding or are likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.
Simon had not responded to the recusal request as of early Thursday afternoon.
If a judge refuses recusal, that could be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.