Retiring federal judge Mark Wolf says he is stepping down so he can finally speak, unshackled, about what he views as an existential threat to the rule of law. However, what his dramatic exit really exposes is how comfortable elites have become in their seats of power and how hollow their complaints about “free speech” often sound when set against a lifetime of unparalleled privilege.
Wolf, a Reagan appointee who had served for more than 40 years, recently published a resignation essay stating that he “no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom.” He faulted President Donald Trump for what he sees as the weaponization of the legal system, the shielding of allies, the abuse of prosecutorial power, and the erosion of oversight. He added that remaining silent is now “intolerable.”
His Trump Derangement Syndrome symptoms were just too much for him to tolerate any longer. It sounds almost like the Trump trial courts where lawyers suppress free speech, twist the facts, and make up rules. Only failure in the “rule of law” amplified by the media could propel Trump. So, it’s really the reverse: Trump is a result of people wanting rule of law.
While Wolf may be talking about “free speech” as a reason for his resignation, he is also trading in a currency of which most Americans can only dream. He is nearly 80 years old. He has enjoyed the prestige, the respect, and the lifetime security of a federal judgeship. Meanwhile, many Americans would have to work years longer simply to retire in their 70s. The idea that he is making some dramatic sacrifice by walking away at this stage rings a bit hollow.
Yes, judges are bound by ethical rules that limit their public commentary. These constraints exist for a reason. They protect the neutrality of the judiciary. Moreover, we grant lifetime tenure precisely to insulate judges from political winds and pressures. When Wolf resigns to speak more freely, he is converting his retirement into a political platform.
Wolf did not leave under duress. His resignation does not even create a new vacancy for the administration to fill because he took senior status years ago and his successor is already in place. He was not “forced out.” He simply chose to step aside at a moment that suited him, from a position that very few Americans will ever be able to attain.
He gave up his gavel and robe because he wants to be less constrained in his public commentary. That is hardly selfless martyrdom; rather, it is strategic repositioning. He now walks away with the benefits of stature, an influential platform, and even a new role at a Boston law firm.
The most revealing line in Wolf’s essay may be his admission that he “observed in silence” while Trump and his allies dismantled the institutions he values. If someone spends four decades on the bench and only now realizes that silence feels stifling, that is not a portrait of bravery under pressure. Instead, it is a luxury complaint.
Contrast this with the countless Americans who have watched norms erode but lack the protection to speak openly. Or consider younger judges and public servants who must remain in their roles, honor the limits of judicial conduct, and continue serving without the option of a comfortable exit.
Ultimately, if Wolf truly believed the courts faced “vicious verbal attacks” and public confidence was collapsing, he could have remained on the bench and worked to reinforce judicial legitimacy. Judges strengthen democracy by doing their jobs well and by demonstrating integrity through their decisions. They do not strengthen democracy by vacating their posts just to join the chorus of partisan commentators. Instead of remaining in the safe arena where he held real authority, Wolf stepped aside to engage in free political speech that he could have avoided. That decision says far more about his priorities than it does about the health of our country and rule of law that has been declining long before Trump.
REAGAN-APPOINTED JUDGE RESIGNS TO PURSUE ANTI-TRUMP ACTIVISM
Wolf traded a seat of genuine influence to fix the rule of law for the comfort of public commentary. He exchanged responsibility to defend the judiciary from within for the easier task of criticizing it from the outside. He abandoned the role of impartial adjudicator in favor of the role of political critic.
Free speech should not be treated as a privilege reserved for those who can walk away from a lifetime appointment with a pension, a prestigious résumé, and a guaranteed audience. It belongs to all of us. Moreover, it is exercised daily by Americans who have far more to lose and far less protection than Wolf ever did. The real defenders of free speech are not the retiring elites who exit the stage late in life to air their grievances. The real defenders are the ordinary citizens who speak up when their voices are all they have.
Shaun McCutcheon is a free speech advocate, an Alabama-based electrical engineer, and the founder of Multipolar. He was the successful plaintiff in the 2014 Supreme Court case McCutcheon v. FEC.
