When longtime U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf announced his resignation in early November 2025, the legal and political worlds took notice. Wolf, a respected jurist who had served for more than four decades on the federal bench in Massachusetts, had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. His departure, however, was no quiet retirement—it was a pointed protest against what he described as President Donald Trump’s assault on the rule of law and a dire threat to American democracy.
In a striking op-ed published in The Atlantic, Wolf laid bare his reasons for stepping down. “My reason is simple: 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,” Wolf wrote, as reported by The Atlantic. For a man who had looked forward to serving on the bench for life, the decision was not made lightly. “Silence, for me, is now intolerable.”
Wolf’s resignation, effective November 8, 2025, came after a long and distinguished career. Before joining the federal bench, he began his public service in 1974 at the Department of Justice, inspired by Attorney General Edward Levi under President Gerald Ford, according to Fox News Digital. Wolf later became the deputy U.S. attorney for the District of Massachusetts and chief of the Public Corruption Unit in Boston from 1981 to 1985, as noted by a federal court statement. He took senior status in 2014, reducing his caseload, and his seat was filled by Judge Indira Talwani, appointed by President Obama in 2013 and confirmed in 2014. This meant that Wolf’s resignation would not give President Trump an opportunity to appoint a successor—an important point the judge himself highlighted.
In his essay, Wolf did not mince words about the Trump administration’s actions. He accused Trump of using the law as a weapon against political opponents and shielding allies and donors from scrutiny. Wolf specifically criticized the Department of Justice’s prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, as well as Trump’s social media posts urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute Comey, James, and Senator Adam Schiff. “Even if a prosecution ends in an acquittal, it can have devastating consequences for the defendant,” Wolf warned. He further lamented what he called Trump’s disregard for the principle that prosecutors should only seek indictments when they have “sufficient admissible evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” In Wolf’s view, “Trump has utterly ignored this principle.”
Wolf’s critique extended beyond prosecutions. He condemned Trump’s use of executive orders, labeling them as “unconstitutional or otherwise illegal,” and denounced calls for judges to be impeached, alleged corruption by Trump and his associates, and the attacks on the judiciary that have led to real threats against judges. “The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out,” Wolf wrote. “I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.”
The resignation resonated throughout the legal community, particularly in Boston, where Wolf’s career had left a lasting mark. Retired Judge Christopher Muse, a former associate justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court, told GBH News that retired judges have a unique and important role to play. “In a way, you’re straitjacketed as a judge,” Muse said, referring to the ethical constraints that prevent sitting judges from speaking out. But after stepping down, he argued, “there is enormous freedom—and even a moral obligation—to speak out.”
Retired Judge Nancy Gertner, who served alongside Wolf on the federal bench and now teaches at Harvard Law School, called his resignation “extraordinary.” Gertner, herself a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s approach to the judiciary, remarked, “This is someone who loved being a judge. He would have been the last person I would have expected to resign from the bench. So it took a lot to get to this moment.” She added, “I’m sad that [Wolf] was leaving the job he absolutely loved. And, on the other hand, I’m thrilled that he’s joining the chorus of judges who are appalled by what’s going on.”
Chief Judge Denise J. Casper, who leads the District Court of Massachusetts, also praised Wolf’s contributions. “Judge Wolf has served on this Court with distinction for over four decades,” she said in a statement. “His steadfast commitment to the rule of law, determination in wrestling with novel issues of fact and law, and dedication to making fair, equitable and legally sound decisions without fear or favor are the hallmarks of his time on the bench.” Casper further noted that Wolf’s “many opinions on complex issues of law in notable cases have had a great impact on jurisprudence.”
Wolf’s resignation letter and subsequent interviews made clear that he intends to remain active in the fight to protect American democracy and the judiciary. “I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy,” he wrote. He also plans to join the boutique Boston law firm Todd & Weld LLP, where he will continue to lend his expertise to cases and causes that align with his values.
Not everyone, however, saw Wolf’s resignation as a principled stand. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, in a statement to Fox News Digital, argued that judges who “want to inject their own personal agenda into the law have no place on the bench.” She pointed to the Trump administration’s “over 20 Supreme Court victories” as evidence that its policies have been “consistently upheld by the Supreme Court as lawful despite an unprecedented number of legal challenges and unlawful lower court rulings.” Jackson went further, saying, “Any other radical judges that want to complain to the press should at least have the decency to resign before doing so.”
Wolf’s decision, while unusual, is not without precedent. Judges have historically been constrained by ethical rules that limit their public commentary on political matters, a restriction designed to safeguard the impartiality of the judiciary. But as retired Judge Muse noted, “The more voices, the louder the messaging… and the courts are the last barrier for what’s going on.” In times of heightened political tension, Muse argued, retired judges speaking out is vital to maintaining the rule of law and constitutional principles.
As Wolf, now 78, embarks on this new chapter, he is keenly aware of the uncertainty of his efforts. Yet, he found inspiration in the words of Senator Robert F. Kennedy: “Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope. Enough of these ripples can become a tidal wave.” Whether Wolf’s ripple will become a wave remains to be seen, but his resignation has already sparked a renewed conversation about the role of judges—and the rule of law—in American democracy.
