On behalf of our hundreds of thousands of supporters and activists nationwide, People For the American Way opposes the nomination of Matthew Schwartz to be a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
As explained in more detail in the second half of this letter, we do not support confirming any judicial nominees of Donald Trump. He is dangerously unqualified to be making lifetime appointments to the one branch of government that is in a position to provide checks and balances to his lawless actions.
But first, this letter focuses on one of those nominees: Matthew Schwartz. Once more, President Trump is seeking to place one of his personal attorneys onto a federal circuit court. Schwartz’s loyalty to Trump, and his lifetime of work empowering the already-powerful, make him a poor choice for a position that is supposed to provide equal justice under the law.
Matthew Schwartz
Since 2025, Schwartz has represented Donald Trump in two of his many efforts to avoid accountability for unlawful behavior. He represents Trump, members of his family, and parts of the Trump Organization in appealing a judicial finding that they had fraudulently inflated the value of Trump’s assets by between $812 million and $2.2 billion annually between 2014 and 2021.
The other case involves the hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. In May 2024, a unanimous New York jury found then-former President Trump guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in order to influence the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. In October 2016, the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape was released, with Trump bragging about how his fame empowered him to force himself sexually upon women with impunity. This was a crisis moment for Trump and his campaign. Then pornographic actress Stormy Daniels threatened to tell the public about a 2006 sexual encounter with Trump. To keep the story out of the news and thereby influence the election, she was paid to keep quiet. Trump business records were falsified to cover up the payments.
After his reelection in 2024, Trump hired Schwartz to help him escape accountability. Citing the Supreme Court’s notorious Trump v. United States decision on presidential immunity, Schwartz argued that Trump’s activities during his first term to cover up his private business crimes and his private sexual activity were, in fact, related to his official duties as president. As a result, he argued, the case should at the very least have been removed to federal court. In addition, he argued that Trump v US bars the use of much of the evidence presented to the jury.
Having loyally served the interests of Donald Trump, he is now being rewarded by the president with a lifetime seat on the Second Circuit. This is the circuit that includes the immensely important Southern District of New York. Under what is arguably the most corrupt administration in American history, it is more important than ever that the judges there place their loyalty to the rule of law rather than to the person of Donald Trump.
Last fall, it was reported that the Trump administration is pressuring the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District to abuse his office and engage in politically motivated investigations of Democrats.[i] This was the same district in which the Justice Department pursued a corrupt quid pro quo scheme to secure then-Mayor Eric Adams’ cooperation in executing Trump administration immigration policies.[ii] The Second Circuit plays a vital role in appeals from cases arising from New York. We need a judge on this circuit with a demonstrated commitment to the faithful application of the law and the Constitution, not someone apparently chosen for their loyalty to Donald Trump.
Apart from his loyalty to Trump, Schwartz’s record is not that of someone who would ensure that those without power have their fair day in court. When everyday Americans have sought justice against businesses that have abused their power, Schwartz has stood in their way.
For instance, individuals who had lost their homes due to predatory lending practices sued Emigrant Mortgage Company and Emigrant Bank for racial discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The case involved “reverse redlining,” in which a lender extends credit on unfair terms because of a person’s race and where they live. This type of targeting of people with no access to reasonably priced credit violates the Fair Housing Act. A jury found for the homeowners, and the Second Circuit upheld the verdict.[iii] Schwartz filed an unsuccessful certiorari petition.[iv] Among other things, he argued that the Supreme Court should consider overturning its 2015 ruling in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project. That important civil rights precedent recognized that practices with a discriminatory impact on the ability of racial minorities to obtain housing and that are not properly justified are illegal under the Fair Housing Act. Overturning Inclusive Communities would have severely weakened the Act and empowered companies to harm even more innocent people.
In another case, when investors claiming to have been defrauded by the major international financial services company Barclays went to court, their efforts to vindicate their rights were countered by Schwartz. In 2014, New York’s attorney general alleged that Barclays was misrepresenting protections it claimed to offer investors. This led to a significant drop in the price of its stock. A group of investors then filed a federal class action suit, alleging that the company’s misrepresentations had kept the stock price artificially high. They sued on behalf of all persons and entities who had purchased the particular Barclays stock between the earliest alleged misrepresentation in 2011 and the attorney general’s 2014 announcement. Schwartz argued that the class should not be certified, a position that was rejected both by a federal district court and the Second Circuit.[v]
Class actions are a critical component of justice because they correct for the substantial power imbalance between an individual and an enormous corporation. There are often times when a corporation causes millions of dollars of damages to people, but the amount of damages per person is so small that the cost of seeking justice would outweigh the benefits. But when the injured parties can unify as a class, such disincentives disappear, allowing the entire universe of aggrieved individuals to collect damages and making possible the deterrent effect of a potentially significant financial loss to the corporation. Class actions also help inform people who would not otherwise know that they have been wronged in some way. Class actions are a vital way that courts can fulfill their functions of making all litigants equal before the law, regardless of their economic and political power.
Schwartz even went on the attack against society’s least powerful when he was in college. As a student at Princeton in the late 1990s, he opposed legal equality for same-sex couples, especially in marriage. This was not an uncommon position at the time, shortly after the passage of the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act. But Schwartz’s response to equality advancements on campus was extreme even in that era, and it is revealing.
Years before any state recognized civil marriages between same-sex couples, they were still able to exercise their First Amendment Free Exercise right to have religious ceremonies. In 1997, a same-sex couple held their ceremony in the Princeton Chapel, with the dean presiding. Schwartz responded with outrage. He condemned the couple for holding the ceremony in the university chapel, and he condemned the school administration for not barring them from doing so.[vi]
He wrote that this was an illegitimate use of the chapel because most religions condemned same-sex intimacy. He condemned as “inexcusable” the “emotional harm caused to God-fearing Princetonians.” While he conceded that some religions recognized same-sex unions, he denied their legitimacy by claiming they did so only because of “political pressures.”
The few sects of Judaism and Christianity that accept homosexuality and even perform gay marriages have unfortunately sacrificed Biblical teachings to political pressures. The overwhelming religious objection to homosexual marriages leads to the rational decision that gay marriages should not occur in a Chapel that represents all faiths.[vii]
Schwartz’s arrogant and contemptuous dismissal of other people’s faith is deeply disturbing coming from someone of any age or background. And his conclusion that a chapel representing people of all faiths should be closed to a faith he personally disapproves of is truly frightening.
The Senate should not give him a lifetime judicial position deciding the rights of others.
The Senate Should Not Confirm Judicial Nominees of a President Who Defies the Courts and Expects Absolute Loyalty From His Nominees
The federal courts are essential to providing the checks and balances needed to prevent tyranny. At present, they are the only branch of the federal government carrying out this essential function.
President Trump does not share that vision of the courts. He expects the judges he nominates to show him personal loyalty and always rule in his favor.
This has been clear for a long time. However, on May 10, Trump himself made it impossible to pretend otherwise. In a Truth Social post, he wrote this about Supreme Court justices:
[I]t’s really OK for them to be loyal to the person that appointed them to 'almost' the highest position in the land, that is, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court.[viii]
In March, Trump condemned the Court for striking down his tariffs even though he supported them:
The Court knew where I stood, how badly I wanted this Victory for our Country, and instead decided to, potentially, give away Trillions of Dollars to Countries and Companies who have been taking advantage of the United States for decades.[ix]
He then went on to condemn the independence of justices who have ruled against him:
They openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land, a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and go out of their way, with bad and wrongful rulings and intentions, to prove how "honest," "independent," and "legitimate" they are.[x]
No president who is looking for unfettered loyalty from his judicial nominations can be allowed to put more judges on the bench at any level.
This development does not come out of the blue. Soon after returning to office, Trump began defying court orders and threatening judges who rule against him. In a May 30, 2025, letter to the Judiciary Committee, we explained that a president who does this should not be allowed to name anyone to the one branch of the federal government that is checking his power.[xi]
Events since then have only strengthened our case. For instance, an extensively-documented whistleblower complaint revealed that senior Justice Department official Emil Bove suggested in March that the administration violate court orders.[xii] President Trump subsequently nominated Bove to a seat on the Third Circuit, to which he was confirmed. The administration now routinely defies the courts. In fact, a July study revealed that the Trump administration had defied one in three judges who had ruled against him.[xiii]
Nationwide concern over the Trump administration’s deceptive filings and court defiance continues to grow. The administration even risks losing the “presumption of regularity,” in which judges presume that the federal government and its lawyers are telling the truth and acting in good faith.[xiv] Indeed, an October 2025 report revealed dozens of instances of judges expressing distrust in the government’s representations, as well as growing concerns within the federal bench about noncompliance with judicial orders.[xv]
And in November 2025, a sitting federal judge nominated by President Reagan resigned from his lifetime position in order to speak frankly and in depth about Trump’s threat to the rule of law. Mark L. Wolf wrote:
I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom. President Donald Trump is using the law for partisan purposes, targeting his adversaries while sparing his friends and donors from investigation, prosecution, and possible punishment. This is contrary to everything that I have stood for in my more than 50 years in the Department of Justice and on the bench. The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.[xvi]
Later that same month, President Trump even called for the execution of members of Congress for stating the undisputed legal fact that members of the military may not follow unlawful orders.[xvii]
In January 2026 alone, the Trump administration violated nearly 100 court orders relating to ICE’s reign of terror in the Minneapolis area that led to brutal killings of American citizens Alex Pretti and Renee Good. These orders were issued to protect the people of Minnesota from unlawful abuses of power by ICE. On January 28, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz released a list of those violated orders.[xviii] He wrote:
[It] identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases. The extent of ICE’s noncompliance is almost certainly substantially understated. This list is confined to orders issued since January 1, 2026, and the list was hurriedly compiled by extraordinarily busy judges. Undoubtedly, mistakes were made, and orders that should have appeared on this list were omitted.
This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law.[xix]
At least 35 times between August 2025 and February 2026, federal district court or magistrate judges in California, Texas, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, West Virginia and Puerto Rico ordered the administration to explain why it should not be punished for violating court orders.[xx]
This is a unique moment of crisis for our nation. Fortunately, the framers of our Constitution anticipated a moment such as this. Through the confirmation process, they gave the Senate the power and the responsibility to prevent a president such as this from sabotaging the independence of our courts.
The Senate should not confirm any judicial nominee of President Trump’s at any level.
[i] “U.S. Attorney Under Pressure After Order to Investigate Democrats,” New York Times, Nov. 15, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/15/nyregion/sdny-jay-clayton-epstein.html.
[ii] “Justice Department tells prosecutors to drop case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams,” CBS News, Feb. 11, 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/trump-eric-adams-new-york-mayor-justice-department.
[iii] Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortgage Company, 129 F.4th 124 (2025).
[iv] Emigrant Mortgage Company v. Saint-Jean, petition for certiorari, Supreme Court docket no. 25-229, https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-229/370641/20250825151704170_25-%20Petition.pdf.
[v] Strougo v. Barclays PLC, 312 F.R.D. 307 (2016), affirmed in Waggoner v. Barclays PLC, 875 F.3d 79 (2017).
[vi] “Married in the Eyes of God?” Matthew Schwartz, The Princeton Tory, Vol. XIV, No. 5 (Oct/Nov 1997), pp 4-6.
[vii] Id. at 5.
[viii] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116552659719497289.
[ix] https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116236850873003597.
[x] Id.
[xi] https://www.peoplefor.org/sites/default/files/downloads/2025-06/Hermandorfer_and_4_MO_noms-opposition_letter.pdf.
[xii] “Justice Dept. Leader Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says,” New York Times, June 24, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/us/politics/justice-department-emil-bove-trump-deportations-reuveni.html.
[xiii] “Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him,” Washington Post, July 21, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/21/trump-court-orders-defy-noncompliance-marshals-judges.
[xiv] See, e.g., David French, “How a Trump Judge Exposed the Trump Con,” New York Times, Oct. 12, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/12/opinion/trump-judge-immergut-portland-national-guard.html; “Judges Openly Doubt Government as Justice Dept. Misleads and Dodges Orders,” New York Times, Aug. 4, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/04/us/politics/trump-justice-department-judges-courts.html.
[xv] “"The ‘Presumption of Regularity’ in Trump Administration Litigation,” Just Security, updated Oct. 15, 2025, https://www.justsecurity.org/120547/presumption-regularity-trump-administration-litigation.
[xvi] “Why I Am Resigning,” Judge Mark L. Wolf, The Atlantic, Nov, 9, 2025, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/11/federal-judge-resignation-trump/684845.
[xvii] “Trump says Democrats’ message to military is ‘seditious behavior’ punishable by death,” Associated Press, Nov. 20, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/trump-military-traitors-sedition-illegal-orders-c5fc3c5bd2fbc6b1204550e4203c24b2.
[xviii] “ICE is not a law unto itself,’ Minnesota judge says after immigrant released following contempt threat,” CNBC, Jan. 28, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/28/ice-immigrant-minnesota-contempt-released.html.
[xix] Juan v. Noem, Case No. 26-CV-0107 (PJS/DLM), order of Jan. 28, 2026, https:// storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171/gov.uscourts.mnd.230171.10.0_2.pdf .
[xx] “Judges Grow Angry Over Trump Administration Violating Their Orders,” New York Times, Feb. 23, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/23/us/politics/judges-contempt-immigration-trump.html.