As this edition of the Bar Bulletin is published, the presiding judge will administer the oath to the newest members of our Washington Bar. Admittees recite a number of affirmations, including two promises that seem particularly important in 2025. Persons entering our bar must promise to:
support the Constitution of the State of Washington and the Constitution of the United States.
And to:
maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
The promises we make when we take our oath is part of who we are and, I hope, what we believe.
Apart from the states of Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, and New Hampshire, attorneys must swear or affirm they will support, protect or defend the U.S. Constitution.1 Most of the oaths also include a promise to maintain the respect due to the courts. Until recent weeks, I assumed that all members of our profession would agree we have an obligation to follow every judicial order, oral or written, until the terms of the order are fulfilled or unless the order is modified or vacated by an appellate court.
Recently, we have witnessed a standoff between attorneys representing the federal government and federal judges who are directing specific information be provided. Not only is there a disagreement as to what actions must be undertaken by federal officials who deported 277 people to El Salvador without any form of due process; it seems there is disagreement about whether the Constitution applies to gang members.
Federal authorities insist that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, mistakenly taken from his family and deported to El Salvador without any judicial process, is a gang member. He has no criminal record in this country or the one he fled at age 16. No credible evidence has been offered to support the conclusion he is affiliated with a gang. But assume for a minute that he is. How did we get to a place where gang affiliation excuses the failure to provide a person any process before depriving them of their liberty? I always thought that process is what defines us as a country and that we, as attorneys, have an obligation to support that process. After all, we took an oath.
The President is arguing that due process is too burdensome and not required. “[W]e have thousands of people that are ready to go out and you can’t have a trial for all of these people,” President Trump said. “It wasn’t meant. The system wasn’t meant. And we don’t think there’s anything that says that.”2 The Supreme Court held that all the detainees are entitled to due process of law “before such removal occurs”.3
This really feels like a defining moment for the people who promised to support the Constitution, including the people who interpret and apply it. After three decades in practice, there have been a few occasions when I thought the judge did not get it quite right. A handful of times, I sought reconsideration or appealed a decision. But it would not even occur to me to disregard any part of the court’s ruling or suggest impeaching the judge.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”4 Chief Justice Roberts issued his statement hours after a social media post from President Trump in which the President referred to U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg as an unelected “troublemaker and agitator.”5
Judge Boasberg did what he was appointed to do: he supported the Constitution by directing the federal government to provide some level of process to people being shipped to a jail in El Salvador, before shipping them out. All nine U.S. Supreme Court justices agreed with Boasberg’s ruling on due process.
The federal administrators now claim they have no ability to return Abrego Garcia to the United States and to his family, so his case really demonstrates the importance of due process provided at a meaningful time and manner.
Then there are the law firms that also received no process before the President targeted them for their representation of clients or causes he does not favor. He signed executive orders restricting the access of targeted law firms from federal buildings, preventing employees in federal agencies from meeting with attorneys in these firms, and directing federal agencies to terminate contracts held by clients of targeted firms. The targeted firms were criticized for their equity and inclusion work.
Two of the targeted firms have a presence in our community and are pushing back; Perkins Coie and, more recently, Susman Godfrey are suing for relief from the unconstitutional terms in the executive orders. Attorneys directly impacted are members of our bar association, so we know who they are. Now we know what they believe. They are advocating for Constitutional principles like free speech, due process, the right to counsel, and equal protection.6 Perkins Coie and Sussman Godfrey are demonstrating not only courage in their battle for justice, but they are also proceeding true to the oath they took to support the Constitution.
The threats to our rule of law, our profession and the independence of our judiciary led to a serious discussion of the KCBA Board. KCBA was asked to join statements of support for Perkins Coie and join an amicus brief in support of Perkins Coie. We were asked to join an amicus brief in support of Sussman Godfrey. The phrase “easy yes” came up multiple times when we discussed whether to take a public stand against the attacks against our profession.
Although multiple firms are now in possession of orders restraining the federal government from engaging in the actions directed by the President, the administration continues to issue executive orders with impermissible terms. Continuing to argue for enforcement of executive orders with multiple constitutional flaws really seems inconsistent with a promise to support the Constitution of the United States.7
KCBA’s mission is to connect and serve our diverse legal community, promote professional and judicial excellence, engage in public policy, and increase access to justice. I believe it is important for a bar association to take a public position on threats to fundamental Constitutional protections that are meant to apply to everyone. This is not a partisan position. In taking a public position in defense of our profession and our Constitution, we are keeping the promise we all make when taking the oath.
1 Judge Margaret Robb of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Oaths of Admission for All 50 States, https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/litigation/Oaths.pdf. In some states, like Montana, attorneys promise to “support, protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution.
2 Luke Broadwater, The New York Times, Trump Says Undocumented Immigrants Shouldn’t Get Trials Before Deportation (April 22, 2025), www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/us/politics/trump-undocumented-immigrants-trials-deportation.html.
3 Trump v. J. G. G., No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, at *2 (U.S. Apr. 7, 2025).
4 Chris Megerian, Lindsay Whitehurst, and Mark Sherman, The Associated Press, Roberts rejects Trump’s call for impeaching judge who ruled against his deportation plans (March 18, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-federal-judges-impeachment-29da1153a9f82106748098a6606fec39.
5 Id.
6 Perkins Coie, Filings & Milestones, www.perkinscoiefacts.com/filings.
7 Legal challenges are pending in the District of Columbia. The oath for attorneys admitted in D.C. includes a promise to support the Constitution. See D.C. Bar Rule 46(l), Oath.
