In a riveting turn of events, D.C. Court’s Judge Reggie Walton, known for his sharp criticism of Donald Trump on a national broadcast, faced a strong backlash from a D.C. court of appeals. This panel criticized Walton for endorsing what they deemed unconstitutional surveillance on a Jan 6 defendant, purely on the grounds of disagreeing with the defendant’s political views. The focus of the controversy revolves around the judge’s decision to allow warrantless scrutiny of the defendant’s computer, allegedly to probe into “controversial” political opinions.
This past weekend brought a twist when the appeals court panel pointed out Walton’s error. They highlighted that he approved the computer monitoring without assessing its relevance to sentencing factors or its necessity, thereby infringing on liberties unjustifiably. Legal analyst Julie Kelly brought to light the appeals court’s statement, emphasizing the court’s view that Walton’s actions were not only excessive but lacked legal justification.
Don’t miss this! Carry faith with you everywhere with the Exclusive National Prayer Coin!
Adding fuel to the fire, Mike Davis of the Article 3 Project, criticized Walton for his dual role as a CNN commentator and a federal judge, suggesting that Walton’s focus should be on understanding the fundamentals of law rather than providing television commentary. Davis, who previously lodged a formal complaint against Walton, accused him of airing personal grievances against Trump on CNN. This, according to Davis, displayed Walton’s bias against January 6 defendants and Trump supporters, marking a concerning trend among DC federal judges who feel compelled to voice their opinions on Trump, unconstrained by judicial ethics.
