The Florida Bar has rejected an ethics complaint filed by 128 former judges against James Percival, the general counsel for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The complaint, filed on August 18, 2026, accused Percival of violating professional conduct rules through social media posts that criticized federal judges who ruled against the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The state bar official who closed the matter stated that the organization does not investigate sitting federal officers while they are in office.
The dispute originated in mid-July 2026 when Percival began a social media series on the platform X titled "Worst of the Worst, District Judge Edition." The series was modeled after DHS announcements regarding the arrest or deportation of individuals during immigration enforcement actions. In these posts, Percival described certain judges as engaging in "judicial sabotage," "naked politics," and "judicial activism" after they issued rulings or management orders in cases involving the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for migrants from several countries.
The ethics complaint, led by former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Peggy Quince and supported by advocacy groups Democracy Defenders Fund and Lawyers Defending American Democracy, alleged that Percival's posts impugned the integrity of four sitting judges. The filing argued that the DHS lawyer mischaracterized routine legal procedures—such as administrative stays and briefing schedules—as political interference. The former judges contended these statements violated rules prohibiting attorneys from making false or reckless claims about the qualifications or integrity of a judge.
In a letter dated August 28, 2026, Florida Bar counsel Christopher Wackes explained that because Percival is an officer appointed under the U.S. Constitution, a state-level investigation could "encroach on the authority of the federal government." Wackes informed the complainants that they could refile their grievances once Percival is no longer in office. Following the dismissal, Percival posted an image of himself superimposed on a fictional character to social media to highlight the case's closure. He had previously defended his posts as a "factual review of judicial decisions."
For the legal community and the public, the decision clarifies that professional conduct rules regarding the criticism of the judiciary will not be enforced by the Florida Bar against constitutional officers during their active tenure. This means that while 128 former jurists identified the posts as a threat to the rule of law and judicial security, no immediate disciplinary hearing or sanction will occur. The scale of the impact involves the oversight of a top legal advisor for an agency that manages immigration for millions of people and oversees thousands of federal employees.
The decision also sets a precedent for how state bar associations handle complaints against federal executive branch lawyers. Advocacy groups involved in the filing noted that such delays could weaken the impact of ethics rules meant to prevent physical threats or the erosion of public confidence in the courts. The next steps for the parties involved would be a potential refiling of the complaint at an unspecified future date after Percival’s service ends. In the interim, the underlying immigration litigation regarding Temporary Protected Status continues, following U.S. Supreme Court rulings that allowed the program to end for certain nationalities.