DHS lawyer James Percival hits back at 128 former judges after the Florida Bar declines their ethics complaint over his “Worst of the Worst” posts.
DHS lawyer turns tables after Florida Bar decision
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival is pushing back against 128 former judges who filed an ethics complaint over his social media posts criticizing federal judges.
The Florida Bar declined to investigate the complaint, saying it does not investigate or prosecute sitting federal officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they remain in office. Percival is now calling for scrutiny of the former judges who participated in the complaint and are members of the Florida Bar.
The dispute centers on Percival’s social media series titled “Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition,” in which he highlighted federal judges whose rulings he criticized in immigration-related cases.
128 former judges challenged Percival
The complaint was filed by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy and 128 former federal and state judges.
The 24-page filing accused Percival, a licensed Florida attorney, of violating professional conduct rules through what the groups characterized as public attacks on sitting judges.
The complainants argued that Percival’s posts mischaracterized judicial decisions and questioned the integrity of judges. They also warned that public criticism from a senior government lawyer could undermine confidence in the courts and increase the risk of threats against judges.
Former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Peggy Quince, who was appointed by Democratic former Gov. Lawton Chiles, led the group of former judges.
Florida Bar declines to investigate DHS counsel
Florida Bar Counsel Christopher Wackes told the complainants that the organization does not investigate or prosecute “sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.”
According to the Bar, pursuing disciplinary action against such an official could potentially interfere with federal authority.
The Bar’s decision does not amount to a ruling that Percival’s posts complied with professional conduct rules. Rather, it was based on the Bar’s position regarding its jurisdiction over a sitting federal presidential appointee. The complaint could potentially be revisited after Percival leaves his position.
Percival argued that the complainants should have known about the Bar’s position before filing their complaint.
Percival calls complaint political ‘Bar-fare’
Following the decision, Percival accused the Florida Bar members who signed the complaint of potentially misusing the disciplinary process for political purposes.
He described the effort as “Bar-fare,” a play on the term “lawfare,” and argued that the former judges were relying on their professional status to give political criticism greater weight.
Percival compared the episode with the 2020 controversy involving 51 former intelligence officials and claims surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop.
He argued that political movements sometimes rely on prominent experts or former officials to lend credibility to arguments that might otherwise face greater scrutiny.
What was Percival’s ‘Worst of the Worst’ series?
The controversy began with posts in which Percival identified federal judges he believed had taken problematic positions against the Trump administration.
The series focused on judges involved in cases concerning immigration policy, including disputes over Temporary Protected Status and the government’s handling of immigration enforcement.
Percival accused some of the judges of “judicial sabotage,” “judicial micromanagement” and defying Supreme Court precedent.
The former judges who filed the complaint strongly disputed that characterization, arguing that lawyers and government officials have professional obligations when discussing the integrity of judges and courts.
Reuters reported that the posts targeted four sitting federal judges whose decisions involved Trump administration immigration policies, including efforts to end temporary humanitarian protections for nationals of several countries.
Former judges say attacks threaten judicial confidence
The organizations behind the complaint maintained that criticism of judges can cross a line when it becomes personal or attacks a judge’s integrity rather than addressing the substance of a ruling.
Democracy Defenders Fund said after the Bar decision that public attacks by lawyers and government officials can weaken public confidence in the judiciary.
The group also argued that rhetoric targeting judges could increase concerns about physical threats against members of the judiciary.
The disagreement highlights a broader national debate over how aggressively government officials should criticize federal judges whose rulings conflict with presidential policies.
Percival says he plans to keep fighting
Rather than backing away after the complaint, Percival said the controversy has encouraged him to continue his public criticism.
He suggested that the intensity of the opposition indicates his messaging is having an effect and urged conservatives not to retreat simply because political opponents may respond aggressively.
The Florida Bar’s decision has therefore shifted the dispute from whether Percival should face an ethics investigation to whether the former judges who filed the complaint should themselves face scrutiny.
For now, the Bar has closed the matter while Percival remains a sitting federal official. The episode is likely to continue fueling the larger fight over judicial authority, executive power and the increasingly heated public debate surrounding federal immigration rulings.
Also read: Ted Cruz Names Mamdani as Democrats’ Power Player
