A proposed federal rule would give the Attorney General the power to intercept and suspend state bar investigations into federal prosecutors before they begin — with no deadline for completion. Critics across the political spectrum argue the rule violates federal law, undermines federalism, and arrives precisely when documented DOJ courtroom misconduct is at its worst in recent memory.
The Proposal
On March 5, 2026, the Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the Federal Register — Document No. 2026-04390 — that would fundamentally alter the accountability structure governing federal prosecutors. The proposed regulation would add a new § 77.5 to 28 C.F.R. Part 77, codifying what the DOJ describes as a “right of first review” over any state bar ethics complaint filed against a current or former Department attorney.
Under the proposed rule, before a DOJ attorney could participate in any investigative steps initiated by a state bar disciplinary authority, the Department would first be entitled to conduct its own internal review. Critically, state bars would be required to suspend their investigations for the duration of that review. The rule imposes no deadline by which the Department must complete its internal process — meaning a valid ethics complaint could, in theory, be held in limbo indefinitely while the agency that employs the subject of the complaint decides whether to let the inquiry proceed.
The comment period closed on April 6, 2026. The rule has not been finalized.
The Legal Problem: Congress Already Answered This Question
The DOJ’s proposed rule does not arise in a legal vacuum. In 1998, Congress passed the McDade-Murtha Amendment, codified at 28 U.S.C. § 530B, in direct response to a recurring institutional dispute: the claim by federal prosecutors that, by virtue of their federal employment, they were not bound by state professional conduct rules. Congress rejected that claim explicitly. The statute requires Department attorneys to comply with the ethical standards applicable to other attorneys in the state where they are licensed or admitted.
The McDade Amendment was not a close call. Congress passed it after documented abuses by federal prosecutors — including an incident involving then-Congressman Joseph McDade, who was prosecuted and acquitted in a case his attorneys argued involved ethical misconduct by federal prosecutors that state bars had no power to address. The amendment was Congress’s answer: federal prosecutors are lawyers first, and lawyers are subject to ethics oversight wherever they are licensed.
Critics of the proposed rule argue that the new § 77.5 effectively nullifies that Congressional mandate. On April 6, 2026, ABA President Michelle Behnke submitted formal comments calling on the DOJ to withdraw the proposed rule entirely, arguing it would “usurp state supreme courts’ inherent authority to regulate and discipline all attorneys, including Department attorneys,” “violate fundamental separation of powers and federalism principles,” and “thwart Congress’ intent — as expressed in the McDade Amendment — to require Department attorneys to comply with the same state court ethics rules as all other attorneys.”
The ABA was not alone. A coalition of 22 state attorneys general submitted a joint comment letter opposing the rule, signed by the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. Their core objection: the proposed rule “seeks to codify a process by which DOJ would request state bar disciplinary authorities to suspend state investigations” — effectively giving the federal government a veto over the state-level oversight mechanism that Congress mandated must apply to federal attorneys.
The DOJ’s Justification — and What It Reveals
The Department’s stated rationale for the proposed rule is that federal prosecutors have faced “an unprecedented surge in politically motivated bar complaints” — bar filings, the DOJ argues, that are designed not to enforce professional ethics standards but to harass government lawyers for fulfilling their law enforcement duties. The proposed rule would allow the Attorney General to assess complaints on that basis before state authorities are permitted to compel the participation of Department personnel.
There is a legitimate concern embedded in that argument. Bar complaints can be weaponized, and an attorney defending an immigration enforcement action or a prosecution opposed by political activists could plausibly face retaliatory filings. That concern is not manufactured.
But the proposed mechanism is far more expansive than the problem it claims to solve. As currently drafted, the rule imposes no burden on the Department to demonstrate that a complaint is politically motivated before it demands a suspension of state proceedings. There is no timeframe. There is no independent review of the Department’s decision to invoke the delay. And, crucially, the rule gives the DOJ the authority to take action against any state bar that refuses to comply — placing state regulatory bodies in the position of having to contest the federal government in order to carry out their state-law obligations.
The Department cannot, simultaneously, argue that it must be shielded from state bar scrutiny because bar complaints are being weaponized, while also declining to provide a mechanism that would allow states to distinguish weaponized complaints from legitimate ones. The proposed rule resolves that tension entirely in the DOJ’s favor — not through neutral standards, but through unilateral executive power.
The Context the Proposed Rule Cannot Escape
The DOJ’s proposed rule arrives against a backdrop that makes its stated justifications particularly difficult to sustain. Federal judges have documented a pattern of DOJ attorney conduct in court that would, in ordinary circumstances, be precisely the kind of conduct state bars exist to review.
According to an independent study cited in news coverage of the rule, federal judges have rebuked the Trump administration for noncompliance with judicial orders in no fewer than 34 documented cases since August 2025, and have expressed formal skepticism about DOJ factual representations in 90 cases. At least 35 show-cause orders requiring the government to explain potential contempt violations have been issued in immigration-related matters alone.
In New Jersey, the Department itself admitted — after a court-ordered review — that it had “accidentally” violated more than 50 judicial orders in a single district court over a two-month period in immigration detention cases. In Minnesota, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz determined that federal immigration authorities had likely violated court orders “nearly 100 times” in the month of January 2026 alone — a pace he described as likely exceeding the total violations committed by some federal agencies over their entire existence.
A Minnesota federal judge went further: he held a DOJ attorney in civil contempt of court and imposed a daily fine of $500 — a personal financial sanction against a government lawyer — for violating a court order requiring the return of an immigration detainee’s identification documents. This was not a technicality. It was a finding by an Article III federal judge that a DOJ attorney had defied a judicial order in a specific, documented case.
It is in this environment that the Department of Justice is proposing to interpose itself between state bar authorities and its own attorneys. The optics, at minimum, are institutionally corrosive. If the DOJ were operating with clean hands before the courts, the proposed rule would still face serious legal objections. Confronted with the documented record, the rule takes on a different character: not as a shield against political harassment, but as a structural mechanism to prevent independent review of conduct that federal judges have already found troubling.
The Structural Principle at Stake
The power of the state bar system lies precisely in its independence from the entities whose lawyers it regulates. A prosecutor who knows that her bar complaint will first pass through her own employer — with no deadline, no neutral arbiter, and no guaranteed access for the complainant — faces a fundamentally different accountability calculus than one subject to genuinely independent review. The deterrence value of ethics oversight depends on its credibility. An agency that can suspend, delay, and effectively control the outcome of ethics investigations into its own attorneys no longer faces meaningful external accountability for attorney conduct.
This concern is not academic. RSN has documented extensively how institutional self-protection mechanisms — internal review processes that substitute for independent oversight — have been used to shield institutional actors from accountability in other contexts. The pattern is consistent: when the entity being investigated controls the investigation, the investigation tends to find what the entity wishes to find. The McDade Amendment was Congress’s recognition that this dynamic applies to the DOJ as much as to any other institution. The proposed rule would unwind that recognition.
The rule would also create a two-tier system of attorney accountability in the United States. Private attorneys — criminal defense lawyers, civil litigators, immigration advocates — remain subject to immediate, unmediated state bar jurisdiction. The government’s own lawyers, the attorneys with the greatest concentration of prosecutorial power in the American legal system, would be subject to that jurisdiction only after the government itself has had the opportunity to review, assess, and potentially neutralize any complaint. That asymmetry is not a technical regulatory detail. It is a statement about where, in the legal profession, accountability is considered optional.
What Comes Next
Legal experts broadly expect any finalized version of the rule to face immediate court challenges. Plaintiffs will likely argue that the McDade Amendment forecloses the regulatory path the DOJ is attempting — that Congress has already spoken and that the Department’s rulemaking authority under 28 U.S.C. § 530B(b) does not extend to procedures that effectively nullify the statute’s core mandate.
The comment record developed before the April 6 deadline is substantial. Twenty-two state attorneys general, the American Bar Association, multiple state and local bar associations, the American College of Trial Lawyers, and a range of legal ethics scholars submitted comments in opposition. The regulations.gov docket — DOJ-OAG-2026-0001 — is publicly accessible and reflects the breadth of opposition across institutions that rarely agree on anything.
It is worth noting what is not present in that opposition: a broad coalition of former federal prosecutors defending the rule. The people with the most direct experience of how bar complaints have actually been used against DOJ attorneys — career prosecutors who have spent years in federal service — have not emerged as the rule’s champions. The rule’s primary constituency appears to be the Department’s political leadership, not its career legal workforce.
If the DOJ finalizes the rule, litigation will follow. If a court applies the McDade Amendment as written, the rule fails. If the administration seeks to argue that § 530B(b) authorizes the proposed procedure, it will need to explain how a statute designed to ensure external accountability for federal prosecutors instead authorizes a mechanism that eliminates it.
That is not an easy argument. It is the argument the Department of Justice has nonetheless decided to make.
Primary Sources:
• Federal Register: Proposed Rule 2026-04390 (March 5, 2026)
• Regulations.gov docket: DOJ-OAG-2026-0001
• 22-State AG Comment Letter (April 6, 2026)
• 28 U.S.C. § 530B (McDade Amendment)
• NPR: DOJ wants to shield its lawyers from outside scrutiny (April 25, 2026)
• CNN: Judges regularly threatening contempt charges (February 2026)
• Democracy Forward: Analysis of Proposed Rule
Related RSN coverage: Federal Grand Jury Indicts SPLC for Wire Fraud and Money Laundering | Jeffrey Epstein’s Criminal Network: What Court Records Actually Prove