{"id":142841,"date":"2026-01-28T17:23:11","date_gmt":"2026-01-29T01:23:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/28\/senior-doj-official-and-right-wing-lawyer-get-in-hilariously-bitchy-twitter-slapfight\/"},"modified":"2026-01-28T17:23:11","modified_gmt":"2026-01-29T01:23:11","slug":"senior-doj-official-and-right-wing-lawyer-get-in-hilariously-bitchy-twitter-slapfight","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/01\/28\/senior-doj-official-and-right-wing-lawyer-get-in-hilariously-bitchy-twitter-slapfight\/","title":{"rendered":"Senior DOJ Official And Right-Wing Lawyer Get In Hilariously Bitchy Twitter Slapfight"},"content":{"rendered":"

Harmeet Dhillon ascended to head the DOJ\u2019s Civil Rights Division off a career backing election denialism<\/a> and fronting Trump\u2019s most nonsensical defamation suits<\/a>. Ed Whelan is a conservative legal movement darling who spent the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory to discredit Kavanaugh\u2019s accuser and pin the attempted sexual assault on someone else based on real estate floorplans<\/a>, earning the moniker \u201cZillow Ed.\u201d <\/p>\n

Last night, these two leading lights of the conservative legal movement launched into a bitchy slapfight on Twitter. Or X, if Dhillon\u2019s former client Elon insists.<\/p>\n

Yesterday, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the District of Minnesota issued an order demanding that Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons appear personally to answer for the government\u2019s delays and non-compliance with the court-ordered releases. As the judge forcefully wrote, \u201cThe Court\u2019s patience is at an end,\u201d and he wanted the head of the agency to show up to face possible contempt charges. So ICE just went ahead and released Juan Tobay Robles<\/a>, the subject of the specific caption in front of Schiltz, all to avoid having to bring Lyons to court.<\/p>\n

On cue, right-wing media began smearing Chief Judge Schiltz \u2014 who had already earned the ire of conservatives for refusing to take the extraordinary step of overturning a magistrate judge\u2019s denial of an arrest warrant for Don Lemon \u2014 trying to dig up proof of the judge\u2019s wild-eyed pinko lefty impulses. It proved an uphill battle, given that Schiltz is a George W. Bush appointee who clerked for Antonin Scalia\u2026 twice<\/em>. But then Fox News had a breakthrough<\/a>, noting that the Chief Judge has donated to organizations providing legal services for poor people, including the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota!<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Responding to the report, a no doubt annoyed Chief Judge told Fox News<\/a>, \u201cI have donated for many years to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. I have also donated for many years to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid.\u00a0I believe that poor people should be able to get legal representation.\u201d <\/p>\n

That should be the end of it, but it\u2019s 2026 so it definitely wouldn\u2019t be. Conservatives continued sounding off that Schiltz was presumptively unfit because he donates to charities. Whelan, a fellow Scalia clerk, jumped in to explain to the masses that his insider sources tell him that the federal judiciary\u2019s own rules would consider Schiltz\u2019s donations ethically irrelevant:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Putting aside that federal judges probably shouldn\u2019t have a secret ethics code, Whelan\u2019s response missed the point. The mob of right-wing media consumers \u2014 a mob that Whelan has gleefully thrown red meat as a long-time National Review<\/em> blogger \u2014 doesn\u2019t care if these donations were up to ethical snuff. The mob doesn\u2019t even care if Schiltz could have or should have recused himself. They think donating to immigrants is presumptively<\/em> disqualifying for a federal judge. Responding \u201cwell, actually, all judges can do this\u201d only feeds their wingnut belief that the whole system is corrupt.<\/p>\n

So, yes, in a sane world, Whelan\u2019s post should end the argument. But sanity packed up and moved away a long time ago. Check Zillow. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is not, in any obvious way, \u201crelated to this post.\u201d But it is a common refrain from insecure lawyers on social media. Whenever they disagree with a law professor, or a legal journalist, or, as the case may be, the voice of a right-wing think tank, they puff their chests and declare \u201cdo you even go to court<\/em>, bro?\u201d as though waiting through a cattle call is the only authentic qualification to have a legal opinion. Whelan does not spend his days in trial courts, but he does have close personal friendships with copies of the federal judge rulebook on their shelves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yes, her response has no bearing on the ethical rule. That should be the end of the post. Having apparently never heard the old saw, \u201cbetter to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,\u201d Whelan continued. \u201cI have spent the last two decades promoting originalism and textualism, working to transform the courts, and promoting conservative legal causes.\u201d Defying all odds, he managed to make himself sound less credible. Dude, you worked for the Justice Department too. Just say that! \u201cWell, I have<\/em> spent 20 years attending parties and peddling disingenuous readings of obscure 19th century pamphlets\u201d is not getting the job done.<\/p>\n

In any event, Whelan had asked a rhetorical question. Does Dhillon know what a rhetorical question is?<\/p>\n

[Rimshot]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Tween girls everywhere are saying, \u201cdamn, you two need to dial down the drama.\u201d<\/p>\n

Do you need a client to understand the appearance of impropriety? Seems pretty straightforward. Like, if you bring a ludicrous lawsuit in a jurisdiction<\/a> for the sole purpose of drawing a judge who owns a sizable chunk of a stock directly tied to your client<\/a>\u2026 that<\/em> would be an appearance of impropriety. Context-free?!? He included a citation!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It is not very strange. It is very predictable.<\/p>\n

And successful too\u2026 at least with the conservative audience for this conversation. The replies just mindlessly parrot Dhillon. \u201cYou\u2019re acting like a grown up \u2018lawyer\u2019 without actually having been one in practice,\u201d one writes, apparently without investing the 10 seconds required to look Ed up on Wikipedia. \u201cEd failed Ethics Class in his on line law school,\u201d writes another. Presumably a Yalie. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Whenever someone suggests that generative AI will replace writers, realize that a million digital monkeys at a million digital typewriters could never string together \u201cI majored in two dead languages at Dartmouth\u201d and then accuse someone else<\/em> of being pretentious. The spark of human creativity cannot be dimmed. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I assume that\u2019s a crack about Dartmouth. <\/p>\n

Dhillon does not reply to this. Uninterested in leaving well enough alone, Whelan double dips:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

That\u2019s argumentative checkmate right there! If you accidentally press the heart icon, it forever bars all disagreement. That\u2019s from the nonpublic Compendium of Twitter Rules \u00a74.2-3(g). <\/p>\n

Honestly, starting to wonder if either of them know what a non sequitur is.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is all very stupid, but I implore you to note that she disses him for not understanding how Twitter works and then screencaps THE WRONG TWEET. You cannot make this stuff up.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yes. You cannot say, \u201cthere are various ethical canons\u201d and then not cite any that contradict. But to play devil\u2019s advocate for Dhillon \u2014 who finally stopped posting after this\u2026 or maybe passed out \u2014 the official advice that Whelan cited only says a judge need not recuse \u201cmerely\u201d by virtue of making a donation. So, not to get all \u201ctextualist,\u201d but it is not dispositive. If a donation that would otherwise be acceptable reasonably creates an appearance of bias, then a judge may find it more prudent to recuse themselves anyway. Nothing about the quoted text directly contradicts that. The Fox News drums and the bleating in the replies signals that there\u2019s a sizable population out there who think this at least creates an appearance of bias. <\/p>\n

But there\u2019s nothing reasonable<\/em> about it! It\u2019s just the dimmest bulbs in law grasping at straws because much smarter conservative judges aren\u2019t letting the administration perform an end run around the rule of law. The term heckler\u2019s veto is consistently<\/a> misapplied<\/a>, but the accurate definition of the phrase has some similarities to this situation. You can\u2019t silence free speech just by claiming you\u2019re \u201cprotecting\u201d the speaker from hypothetical violence, and you can\u2019t manufacture an appearance of impropriety by ginning up a mob to call it \u201cimproper.\u201d <\/p>\n

Giving money to groups that provide legal counsel to poor people does not bias a judge. If it did, there would be a lot more Legal Aid victories in this world. Making sure people have counsel is not the same as endorsing those clients. No reasonable, objective observer thinks believing 3-year-olds shouldn\u2019t represent themselves in court<\/a> is the same as endorsing open borders.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this is another instance of this administration actively promoting conspiracy theories against federal judges. It\u2019s one thing to flag a judge for specific bias, and it\u2019s quite another to recklessly, without any support, blast judges to an audience that you are fully aware can and has lashed out violently after being baited with right-wing conspiracy theories. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s a pretty good argument for disbarring a government attorney trafficking in such nonsense<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But kudos to Dhillon and Whelan for providing some late-night entertainment. It was one of those sporting matchups where you legitimately hope both teams lose. And they did not disappoint.<\/p>\n

UPDATE<\/strong>: An earlier autocorrect maligned version of this article repeated identified Judge Schiltz as Judge \u201cSchlitz.\u201d This was obviously an error because Judge Schiltz is from Minneapolis and Schlitz is the beer that made Milwaukee famous.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Senior DOJ Official And Right-Wing Lawyer Get In Hilariously Bitchy Twitter Slapfight<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n

Harmeet Dhillon ascended to head the DOJ\u2019s Civil Rights Division off a career backing election denialism<\/a> and fronting Trump\u2019s most nonsensical defamation suits<\/a>. Ed Whelan is a conservative legal movement darling who spent the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory to discredit Kavanaugh\u2019s accuser and pin the attempted sexual assault on someone else based on real estate floorplans<\/a>, earning the moniker \u201cZillow Ed.\u201d <\/p>\n

Last night, these two leading lights of the conservative legal movement launched into a bitchy slapfight on Twitter. Or X, if Dhillon\u2019s former client Elon insists.<\/p>\n

Yesterday, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the District of Minnesota issued an order demanding that Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons appear personally to answer for the government\u2019s delays and non-compliance with the court-ordered releases. As the judge forcefully wrote, \u201cThe Court\u2019s patience is at an end,\u201d and he wanted the head of the agency to show up to face possible contempt charges. So ICE just went ahead and released Juan Tobay Robles<\/a>, the subject of the specific caption in front of Schiltz, all to avoid having to bring Lyons to court.<\/p>\n

On cue, right-wing media began smearing Chief Judge Schiltz \u2014 who had already earned the ire of conservatives for refusing to take the extraordinary step of overturning a magistrate judge\u2019s denial of an arrest warrant for Don Lemon \u2014 trying to dig up proof of the judge\u2019s wild-eyed pinko lefty impulses. It proved an uphill battle, given that Schiltz is a George W. Bush appointee who clerked for Antonin Scalia\u2026 twice<\/em>. But then Fox News had a breakthrough<\/a>, noting that the Chief Judge has donated to organizations providing legal services for poor people, including the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota!<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Responding to the report, a no doubt annoyed Chief Judge told Fox News<\/a>, \u201cI have donated for many years to the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota. I have also donated for many years to Mid-Minnesota Legal Aid.\u00a0I believe that poor people should be able to get legal representation.\u201d <\/p>\n

That should be the end of it, but it\u2019s 2026 so it definitely wouldn\u2019t be. Conservatives continued sounding off that Schiltz was presumptively unfit because he donates to charities. Whelan, a fellow Scalia clerk, jumped in to explain to the masses that his insider sources tell him that the federal judiciary\u2019s own rules would consider Schiltz\u2019s donations ethically irrelevant:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Putting aside that federal judges probably shouldn\u2019t have a secret ethics code, Whelan\u2019s response missed the point. The mob of right-wing media consumers \u2014 a mob that Whelan has gleefully thrown red meat as a long-time National Review<\/em> blogger \u2014 doesn\u2019t care if these donations were up to ethical snuff. The mob doesn\u2019t even care if Schiltz could have or should have recused himself. They think donating to immigrants is presumptively<\/em> disqualifying for a federal judge. Responding \u201cwell, actually, all judges can do this\u201d only feeds their wingnut belief that the whole system is corrupt.<\/p>\n

So, yes, in a sane world, Whelan\u2019s post should end the argument. But sanity packed up and moved away a long time ago. Check Zillow. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is not, in any obvious way, \u201crelated to this post.\u201d But it is a common refrain from insecure lawyers on social media. Whenever they disagree with a law professor, or a legal journalist, or, as the case may be, the voice of a right-wing think tank, they puff their chests and declare \u201cdo you even go to court<\/em>, bro?\u201d as though waiting through a cattle call is the only authentic qualification to have a legal opinion. Whelan does not spend his days in trial courts, but he does have close personal friendships with copies of the federal judge rulebook on their shelves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yes, her response has no bearing on the ethical rule. That should be the end of the post. Having apparently never heard the old saw, \u201cbetter to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt,\u201d Whelan continued. \u201cI have spent the last two decades promoting originalism and textualism, working to transform the courts, and promoting conservative legal causes.\u201d Defying all odds, he managed to make himself sound less credible. Dude, you worked for the Justice Department too. Just say that! \u201cWell, I have<\/em> spent 20 years attending parties and peddling disingenuous readings of obscure 19th century pamphlets\u201d is not getting the job done.<\/p>\n

In any event, Whelan had asked a rhetorical question. Does Dhillon know what a rhetorical question is?<\/p>\n

[Rimshot]<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Tween girls everywhere are saying, \u201cdamn, you two need to dial down the drama.\u201d<\/p>\n

Do you need a client to understand the appearance of impropriety? Seems pretty straightforward. Like, if you bring a ludicrous lawsuit in a jurisdiction<\/a> for the sole purpose of drawing a judge who owns a sizable chunk of a stock directly tied to your client<\/a>\u2026 that<\/em> would be an appearance of impropriety. Context-free?!? He included a citation!<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

It is not very strange. It is very predictable.<\/p>\n

And successful too\u2026 at least with the conservative audience for this conversation. The replies just mindlessly parrot Dhillon. \u201cYou\u2019re acting like a grown up \u2018lawyer\u2019 without actually having been one in practice,\u201d one writes, apparently without investing the 10 seconds required to look Ed up on Wikipedia. \u201cEd failed Ethics Class in his on line law school,\u201d writes another. Presumably a Yalie. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Whenever someone suggests that generative AI will replace writers, realize that a million digital monkeys at a million digital typewriters could never string together \u201cI majored in two dead languages at Dartmouth\u201d and then accuse someone else<\/em> of being pretentious. The spark of human creativity cannot be dimmed. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

I assume that\u2019s a crack about Dartmouth. <\/p>\n

Dhillon does not reply to this. Uninterested in leaving well enough alone, Whelan double dips:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

That\u2019s argumentative checkmate right there! If you accidentally press the heart icon, it forever bars all disagreement. That\u2019s from the nonpublic Compendium of Twitter Rules \u00a74.2-3(g). <\/p>\n

Honestly, starting to wonder if either of them know what a non sequitur is.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This is all very stupid, but I implore you to note that she disses him for not understanding how Twitter works and then screencaps THE WRONG TWEET. You cannot make this stuff up.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Yes. You cannot say, \u201cthere are various ethical canons\u201d and then not cite any that contradict. But to play devil\u2019s advocate for Dhillon \u2014 who finally stopped posting after this\u2026 or maybe passed out \u2014 the official advice that Whelan cited only says a judge need not recuse \u201cmerely\u201d by virtue of making a donation. So, not to get all \u201ctextualist,\u201d but it is not dispositive. If a donation that would otherwise be acceptable reasonably creates an appearance of bias, then a judge may find it more prudent to recuse themselves anyway. Nothing about the quoted text directly contradicts that. The Fox News drums and the bleating in the replies signals that there\u2019s a sizable population out there who think this at least creates an appearance of bias. <\/p>\n

But there\u2019s nothing reasonable<\/em> about it! It\u2019s just the dimmest bulbs in law grasping at straws because much smarter conservative judges aren\u2019t letting the administration perform an end run around the rule of law. The term heckler\u2019s veto is consistently<\/a> misapplied<\/a>, but the accurate definition of the phrase has some similarities to this situation. You can\u2019t silence free speech just by claiming you\u2019re \u201cprotecting\u201d the speaker from hypothetical violence, and you can\u2019t manufacture an appearance of impropriety by ginning up a mob to call it \u201cimproper.\u201d <\/p>\n

Giving money to groups that provide legal counsel to poor people does not bias a judge. If it did, there would be a lot more Legal Aid victories in this world. Making sure people have counsel is not the same as endorsing those clients. No reasonable, objective observer thinks believing 3-year-olds shouldn\u2019t represent themselves in court<\/a> is the same as endorsing open borders.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this is another instance of this administration actively promoting conspiracy theories against federal judges. It\u2019s one thing to flag a judge for specific bias, and it\u2019s quite another to recklessly, without any support, blast judges to an audience that you are fully aware can and has lashed out violently after being baited with right-wing conspiracy theories. <\/p>\n

It\u2019s a pretty good argument for disbarring a government attorney trafficking in such nonsense<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But kudos to Dhillon and Whelan for providing some late-night entertainment. It was one of those sporting matchups where you legitimately hope both teams lose. And they did not disappoint.<\/p>\n

UPDATE<\/strong>: An earlier autocorrect maligned version of this article repeated identified Judge Schiltz as Judge \u201cSchlitz.\u201d This was obviously an error because Judge Schiltz is from Minneapolis and Schlitz is the beer that made Milwaukee famous.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Harmeet Dhillon ascended to head the DOJ\u2019s Civil Rights Division off a career backing election denialism and fronting Trump\u2019s most nonsensical defamation suits. Ed Whelan is a conservative legal movement darling who spent the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings peddling a bizarre conspiracy theory to discredit Kavanaugh\u2019s accuser and pin the attempted sexual assault on someone […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":142842,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-142841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/xira.com\/p\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Headshot-300x200-2edl4J.jpg?fit=300%2C200&ssl=1","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142841","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=142841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/142841\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/142842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=142841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=142841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=142841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}