The outlet has asked U.S. District Judge Roy Altman to reject a Department of Justice filing that seeks to block subpoenas in President Donald Trump’s defamation suit against the broadcaster, arguing that the government’s involvement raises serious ethical questions.
DOJ’s “blanket” challenge meets resistance
In a filing submitted Friday, the outlet characterized the DOJ’s “blanket” refusal to honor subpoenas for documents and communications of private individuals and organizations as “improper.” The brief argues that the government’s move mirrors arguments previously advanced by Trump’s legal team, which the court has already deemed unfounded.
Judge Altman, who presides over the Southern District of Florida, was presented with a brief that claims the DOJ’s statement of interest in the defamation case should be given “no weight.” The filing cites a recent decision by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, who rebuked a separate lawsuit alleging collusion between Trump and the DOJ to force a $1.776 billion IRS settlement.
Williams’ order, issued a week earlier, referred Trump’s attorney Alejandro Brito to the Florida Bar and sent a copy to the State Bar of New York, where Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche is under an ethics investigation. The judge described the alleged lawsuit as “non‑adversarial, collusive” and lacking any legal basis.
Related: Plasma Trade Exploits America’s Working Poor
BBC’s argument on conflict of interest
The brief emphasizes that President Trump is identified throughout his complaint as “President Trump,” even though the filing claims he is acting in a personal capacity. It argues that allowing the government to intervene would effectively separate Trump’s official title from the substantive claims, a maneuver the court should reject to preserve fairness.
“The government cannot brush those concerns away merely by asserting that Plaintiff filed this lawsuit ‘in his personal capacity,’ because to do so is to insist that this Court ‘accept the credulous exercise of divorcing President Trump’s current job title from an understanding of what happened here,’” the filing reads, quoting Judge Williams.
According to the outlet, the conflict of interest is especially stark because the government is simultaneously defending Trump’s position while opposing the discovery sought by the broadcaster. The brief suggests that the only way to maintain due process is to disregard the DOJ’s statement of interest entirely.
In an ironic footnote, the brief points out that the DOJ has complained about a subpoena directed at Donald Trump Jr., even though the U.S. Secret Service has prevented the defendant from serving that subpoena.
Related: Judge slams ex-Overstock CEO over Biden claims
The core issue is whether the DOJ should be allowed to intervene in a case where the plaintiff is the sitting president, and whether that intervention undermines the impartiality of the discovery process.
One broader point is how this dispute reflects the tension between executive privilege claims and the need for transparency in high‑profile litigation. When a sitting president is both a party to a lawsuit and the head of the executive branch, the lines between personal and official actions can blur, raising questions about the appropriate role of government counsel in private disputes.
Judge Altman has not yet ruled on the request. The filing notes that the government’s involvement “should be given no weight whatsoever in adjudicating this discovery dispute – a dispute in which, after all, the government need not have involved itself in the first place.”
The case continues to draw attention because it sits at the intersection of defamation law, presidential immunity, and the ethical standards governing both the Department of Justice and private attorneys. Any ruling on the DOJ’s participation could set a precedent for how future lawsuits involving sitting officials are handled.
Leave a Reply