Raven Files Judicial Complaint Against Federal Judge Following Dismissal in Smithsonian Free Speech Case

A Social media First Amendment case challenging censorship, institutional bias, & judicial accountability at the heart of America’s cultural and legal systems.

WASHINGTON, DC, UNITED STATES, July 1, 2025 /EINPresswire.com/ -- Artist and First Amendment litigant Julian Marcus Raven has filed a judicial misconduct complaint under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 against U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper. The complaint was submitted at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., and pertains to Judge Cooper’s handling of Raven v. Sajet (22-cv-2809 CRC), a case involving constitutional questions related to social media and government communication.

The lawsuit centers on Raven’s claim that he was blocked from accessing the official Twitter (now X) account of then–Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet, @NPGDirector. Raven asserts that the account functioned as a government-affiliated platform and that his exclusion constituted a First Amendment violation. The case was impacted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Lindke v. Freed (2024), which addressed when public officials’ social media activity constitutes state action.

In his formal complaint, Raven cites concerns regarding the tone of the ruling, timing of the decision, factual accuracy, and application of Supreme Court precedent. The complaint references Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, highlighting issues of diligence, impartiality, and public confidence.

The case had remained pending for over nine months following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lindke, which the District Court had originally identified as central to resolving the dispute. Following a motion to compel, and subsequently an emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, the case was dismissed by Judge Cooper in May 2025.

The complaint is now set to be reviewed by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg. Raven noted that his focus is on constitutional concerns and public accountability, not personal or political motives.

“My concern is that First Amendment claims are handled with the urgency and impartiality they deserve,” Raven said. “When procedural delays and perceived inconsistencies arise, they merit review through the appropriate channels.”

Raven’s broader legal efforts originated in a separate case (17-cv-01240 TNM), following the rejection of his portrait of President Donald Trump by the National Portrait Gallery. That case raised questions about the legal status of the Smithsonian Institution—an entity described in court as “government through and through”—contrasted with later public statements describing it as an “independent entity.” Raven argues this inconsistency raises significant constitutional and institutional questions that remain unresolved.

In recent weeks, the issue has drawn renewed public interest. On May 30, 2025, President Trump publicly directed the dismissal of Kim Sajet as NPG Director, citing a 17-point briefing that listed Raven’s case as item #4. Sajet resigned two weeks later on June 14, 2025.

Raven, who is representing himself pro se, is currently seeking rehearing in the earlier Smithsonian-related case and has indicated he will continue pursuing legal avenues to clarify the constitutional responsibilities of federally funded cultural institutions and the judiciary’s role in reviewing such matters.

The Office of the Circuit Executive will now evaluate the complaint in accordance with federal procedures. Documents and filings related to the complaint and the underlying case are publicly available through the federal court docket system.

Julian Raven
Julian Raven Artist
email us here