'Brilliant Friend': Federal Judge Already Facing Recusal Request in Immigration Lawsuit Has Strong Ties to Lawyer Involved in the Case

An immigration activist suing the Trump administration to restore funding for a $769 million immigration contract has described the judge presiding over the lawsuit as her "brilliant friend," giving potentially more fuel to the administration’s calls for the judge, Araceli Martinez-Olguin, to recuse herself from the high-profile case.

After Martinez-Olguin’s confirmation on Feb. 28, 2023, to the federal bench in San Francisco, immigration attorney Karen Tumlin said she was "so looking forward to calling my brilliant friend and law school classmate the Honorable Judge Araceli Martinez Olguin," according to social media posts reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon. Now, Tumlin is arguing before Martinez-Olguin in a lawsuit against the administration to restore funding for a contract to provide legal services to unaccompanied alien children.

Tumlin, the head of the Justice Action Center, is representing 11 immigration nonprofit groups in the lawsuit to reverse a freeze the administration placed on the contract on March 21 as part of its broad cuts to federal programs and a review of federal immigration policies. She appeared before Martinez-Olguin in court proceedings on April 1. The next day, Martinez-Olguin ruled in favor of the nonprofits, ordering the administration to temporarily restore funding pending further arguments in the case.

The Department of Justice has already called on Martinez-Olguin to step down because of another potential conflict in the case. The Free Beacon reported that Martinez-Olguin was managing attorney from 2017 to 2018 at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto (CLSEPA), the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

In a recusal motion last week, government attorneys said Martinez-Olguin’s past gig, as well as her statements criticizing the government’s immigration and deportation policies, present "conflicts of interest that have created a serious appearance of impropriety."

The new revelations could heighten pressure on Martinez-Olguin to step down from the case. She’s done so before. She recused herself from a 2023 lawsuit involving the Federal Trade Commission because a potential witness in the case had endorsed Martinez-Olguin’s judicial nomination. Martinez-Olguin said she wanted to "avoid even the appearance of partiality" by stepping down from the case.

While judges are not required to recuse themselves from cases involving close friends, the American Bar Association recommends that "a judge should disclose to the other lawyers and parties in the proceeding information about a friendship with a lawyer" that others involved in the case "might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification." There is no indication that Martinez-Olguin disclosed her friendship with Tumlin to the parties in the immigration case.

Martinez-Olguin has yet to weigh in on the latest recusal request. But Tumlin and the nonprofits involved in the case are pushing back aggressively on the request.

In a court filing on Monday, they said Martinez-Olguin’s previous job at CLSEPA "is not sufficient to meet the high bar to justify recusal." The plaintiffs also dismissed concerns about Martinez-Olguin’s work alongside Tumlin on two previous immigration lawsuits. They served as co-counsel in lawsuits on behalf of DACA recipients.

"The mere fact of a prior professional relationship … does not disqualify a judge from presiding over a case," the plaintiffs said of the connections between Tumlin and Martinez-Olguin.

The groups did not mention Tumlin’s social media posts touting her friendship with Martinez-Olguin. The pair graduated from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2004, and are friends on Facebook.

Federal regulations about judicial recusal are vague, with the decision often left up to the judge. According to federal regulations, judges should recuse themselves from cases when "the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party" involved in litigation. Judges are also required to recuse themselves from cases when their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

It is unclear why the groups suing the Trump administration selected the court in San Francisco as the jurisdiction for the lawsuit or how Martinez-Olguin was selected to preside over the case. CLSEPA is the only plaintiff located in the judicial district and is the smallest of the federal subcontractors receiving funding under the program.

CLSEPA received $300,000 through the federal contract last year, according to federal spending records. By comparison, the Los Angeles-based Immigrant Defenders Law Center and Phoenix-based Florence Immigrant and Refugees Law Project, two other plaintiffs, received $15 million and $11 million through the contract, respectively.

Department of Justice lawyers also argued that Martinez-Olguin’s activism on the immigration issue should disqualify her from the case. In 2021, Martinez-Olguin said that an immigration raid conducted in Tennessee revealed "the racism and unconstitutionality of the federal government’s conduct." She publicly supported California’s sanctuary state bill, SB 54, and called on San Mateo County to "be more proactive in adopting sanctuary policies."

While at CLSEPA, Martinez-Olguin launched its Immigrants' Rights Project, where she led "impact litigation" for the group. Martinez-Olguin lobbied San Mateo county officials to establish a taxpayer-funded program to provide legal representation to illegal aliens.

The district court declined to comment on "personnel matters." Tumlin and the Department of Justice did not respond to requests for comment.

The post 'Brilliant Friend': Federal Judge Already Facing Recusal Request in Immigration Lawsuit Has Strong Ties to Lawyer Involved in the Case appeared first on .