Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf, appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985, resigned from the federal bench to speak publicly about what he says are threats to judicial independence under the current administration.
Wolf, who took senior status in 2013 after serving on the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for decades, published an essay in The Atlantic on November 9, 2025, explaining his decision. He said judicial ethics rules had constrained his ability to comment on political matters, making “silence intolerable” as he watched what he described as an “assault on the rule of law.”
The Judge’s Concerns
Wolf began his legal career at the Department of Justice in 1974, shortly after the Watergate scandal, and cited the influence of former Attorney General Edward Levi’s commitment to nonpartisan justice. “Silence, for me, is now intolerable,” he wrote in his essay, framing his departure as a matter of conscience.
The judge accused the administration of weaponizing the legal system against political opponents while shielding allies from consequences. His four-decade tenure on the bench positioned him as a respected voice on constitutional matters.
The White House Response
Deputy Press Secretary Abigail Jackson responded sharply to Wolf’s resignation, calling him and other judges with similar views “radical judges” focused on personal agendas rather than impartial law application. “Judges that want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench,” Jackson said.
Jackson noted that judges wishing to engage in political discourse should resign first, as Wolf had done. She pointed to more than 20 Supreme Court victories for the administration as evidence that its policies withstand legal scrutiny.
What This Means
Wolf’s resignation does not create a new vacancy for the president to fill, since his seat was already filled when he transitioned to senior status in 2013. The development underscores deepening tensions between elements of the judiciary and the executive branch in the current polarized environment.
Supporters view Wolf’s decision as a principled defense of institutional integrity, while critics characterize it as judicial activism. His move highlights ongoing debates over the proper boundaries of judicial conduct and the rule of law.
This story has been updated. CNN’s reporting team contributed to this report.
