Close Menu

Enough! Federal judges appointed by Trump take stand against Stanford University law students after treatment of conservative

By Updated: POLITICS

Judges appointed by then-President Donald Trump have had enough of the intolerance on the left and they are taking a stand against it.

The two judges have vowed not to hire any law clerks who attended law school at Stanford University after the way a conservative jurist was treated during a recent event.



Last month, Stanford Law School’s chapter of the Federalist Society invited Duncan to speak at their campus. In response, student activists protested loudly and obnoxiously, disrupting the event. And they did so with the full approval of a ‘woke’ dean. U.S. Circuit Judge Kyle Duncan, a Trump appointee from the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, showed up to deliver his remarks at an event hosted by the school’s Federalist Society and was shouted down. A large group of students then walked out in ‘protest.

BizPacReview notes:

The disruptive behavior was not appreciated by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge James Ho and Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Elizabeth Branch, both of whom were nominated to their posts by former President Donald Trump.

Responding to what happened at Stanford, the duo dropped a joint column for National Review mid-last month in which they called for universities to apply more consequences for disruptive students.

“Schools issue grades and graduation honors to help employers separate wheat from chaff. Likewise, schools should inform employers if they’re injecting potentially disruptive forces into their organizations,” they wrote.

They further stated that if schools do not enforce consequences, they will be compelled to take a step they began implementing the previous autumn – refraining from hiring graduates from universities linked to unruly students.

“Otherwise, more and more employers may start to reach the same conclusion that we did last fall — that we have no choice but to stop hiring from these schools in the future,” they wrote.

“At the end of the day, that may be the only way to send a message that will resonate with law schools — judges and other employers imposing consequences on law schools who refuse to impose consequences on their own. No one is required to hire students who aren’t taught to live under the rule of law,” they added.

During a speech on Saturday, Ho doubled down.

“Rules aren’t rules without consequences. … And students who practice intolerance don’t belong in the legal profession,” he said, according to the Washington Free Beacon.

He went on by calling what happened at Stanford Law School an act of “intellectual terrorism.”

“[W]hat some law schools tolerate and even encourage today is not intellectual exploration—but intellectual terrorism. Students don’t try to engage and learn from one another. They engage in disruption, intimidation, and public shaming. They try to terrorize people into submission and self-censorship, in a deliberate campaign to eradicate certain viewpoints from the public discourse,” he said.

“And they’re doing it to accomplished litigators, legal scholars, even federal judges. Judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, as well as the Fifth Circuit, have been disrupted while trying to speak on campus,” he added.





Disclaimer: This article may contain commentary which reflects the author’s opinion.