On Friday, July 17th, 2026, a D.C. Circuit opinion by Judge Justin Walker examined the conduct of a district court judge in the case of U.S. v. Littlejohn. The central issue was whether the judge acted improperly by asking a government lawyer questions that appeared to support the government's case.

Littlejohn noted that the district court repeatedly pressed the government on why only one felony charge was brought against him, despite the possibility of many more charges. The court inquired about the charging decision before the plea hearing, likely as part of its judicial responsibility to weigh the plea bargain's merits. Later, at sentencing, the court revisited the issue, seemingly to provide the government an "opportunity to make it clear to the public" why more charges were not filed.

A footnote in the opinion highlights Littlejohn's complaint that the court admitted it was asking these questions "to help" the government. However, the opinion suggests the court's intent was probably to assist the government in informing the public about the lenient charging decision in this high-profile matter.

The discussion references past oral arguments where justices, including Justice Scalia, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Gorsuch, have acknowledged judges sometimes ask questions "to help" attorneys during proceedings.

This case and the court's questioning underscore the complex role judges play in plea bargains and sentencing, balancing judicial responsibilities with transparency to the public.

Sources