Friday, a federal judge in DC heard a three-hour argument in a case over a very familiar June 1, 2020 Trump episode. That day, a crowd of 1,000 peaceful demonstrators was protesting the police killing of George Floyd, at one of the most iconic public protest sites, Lafayette Square across the street from the Trump White House. 

Famously, the word came down that Lafayette Square was to be violently cleared. This was around the time that Trump wanted to arrange a photo op of him holding up a bible in front of the nearby church. Military, federal and local police forcibly cleared the square of the peaceful George Floyd demonstrators using batons, clubs, horses, pepper spray, smoke, and fired projectiles.

There was national outrage against these actions, even as Trump called for “overwhelming force” against demonstators he called “THUGS” and domestic terrorists.

The ACLU, Black Lives Matter, and others challenged the Trump Administration’s actions.  They emphasized the special nature of Lafayette Park and the incongruous use of such extreme force against people exercising their First Amendment right of “assembly.” We are so used to images of the January 6 violent insurrection at the Capitol that we forget how important it is, that it be expected that peaceful demonstrators will not get treated viciously.

So, the judicial hearing was notable. Naturally, the Justice Department said that the actions were for the President’s security, a “paramount” government interest. The Justice Department did offer some avenues to deal with the case in a low-key way, not necessarily making the centerpiece that Trump is paramount.

But, Judge Dabney L. Friedrich not only sided with the Justice Department, she went out of her way to wield the heavy gavel. She asked, “It seems to me you have to clear the square before he [Trump] walks to the church. Why is that not reasonable?” And, she said, “How do I get over the clear national security concern over the President’s safety?”

Where was Judge Friedrich coming from, to go the way it looks? There is an old expression, “it’s better to know the judge than know the law.” Judge Dabney was put on the court by Trump in 2017.  To be sure, she has excellent credentials. But, going before her on a case about the President’s power is like what Kafka called arguing a legal case before a painting of the court and depending on a painting judge to rise up off that canvas and rule for you.

This is because she served as Associate Counsel – in the President’s own office of Counsel to the President. That means she was thoroughly steeped in very high and mighty majesty of The President. For many years, she could very well, if she felt like it, go outside from her office, maybe bringing along another colleague who was also Associate Counsel to the President, and gone to Lafayette Square to eat a salad or a sandwich. She and her colleague could have seen demonstrators there and recognized how it represented centuries of democracy and freedom in action. 

But more likely, she was inspired by here years in that office to think in the very highest of terms of the need that President Trump not be called to account in a situation like this. While at the White House, she worked on Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, setting him up for later going to the Supreme Court. (Another job she had before Trump appointed her to the bench was as Chief Crime Counsel to Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT.)

By the way, you may very well have read Judge Friedrich’s name earlier this month for a nationally important ruling. It was about the eviction moratorium that the CDC — dealing with the covid pandemic — imposed to avoid the contagion from expelling people – many of whom lost their jobs during the lockdowns — from their homes. Most judges faced with legal challenges had upheld the CDC order. But not Judge Friedrich. She struck it down, saying it was beyond the CDC’s authority. Her order is stayed as the case now goes on appeal.

As for the peaceful George Floyd demonstrators who were treated so brutally in June 2020, they must feel somewhat disheartened to see their civil liberties come under this Trump appointee’s gavel.