🎨 The Artist v. the Bench: My Official Judicial Complaint in the Smithsonian Case
Social media free-speech case number 22-cv-2809 CRC Raven v Sajet
By Julian Marcus Raven | June 28, 2025
Today, I filed an official judicial misconduct complaint against U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper. This follows the controversial dismissal of my First Amendment lawsuit, Raven v. Sajet, in which I challenged the Smithsonian’s former National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet for blocking me on Twitter—then a once government-branded account used for official communication.
My complaint, will now rest on the desk of Chief Judge James E. Boasberg at the E. Barrett Prettyman Courthouse in Washington, D.C., outlining a troubling pattern of conduct. It alleges bias, delay, procedural irregularities, and a level of judicial hostility that should concern anyone who still believes in the impartial rule of law.
And yes—ironically, or perhaps fittingly—this complaint is now in the hands of a judge who was recently impeached in the U.S. House of Representatives for obstructing immigration enforcement efforts under President Trump (see H.Res. 229).
You can’t make this up.
🔥 What Triggered This?
Let’s rewind. When the Supreme Court ruled in Lindke v. Freed, it clarified when a government official’s social media activity becomes “state action” and therefore subject to First Amendment protections. My case mirrored those facts exactly. Kim Sajet used her Twitter account, (formerly @NPGDirector to then @kimsajet due to my first lawsuit exposing her bias), to promote Smithsonian content, post selfies from anti-Trump protests, and engage in public discourse—then blocked me after I tweeted about my new book in which she plays a prominent role.
The law should have been on my side.
But instead of applying the Lindke precedent, Judge Cooper delayed for months. When I filed a motion to compel a ruling, nothing happened. When I submitted an emergency petition directly to the U.S. Supreme Court (yes, I went there), only then did Judge Cooper finally respond—by dismissing my case with a tone I can only describe as angry.
He began his opinion by referring to my legal challenge as a "skirmish" in a "long-running campaign" against the Smithsonian. He ended it by misnaming me as “Rajet.”
Not Raven. Rajet.
For a federal judge—whose rulings are reviewed by multiple clerks and carry enormous legal weight—that kind of error is more than a typo. It signals haste. Or worse, contempt.
⚖️ My Judicial Complaint
Yesterday’s complaint outlines six major issues:
Prejudicial Language: The use of dismissive phrasing paints me not as a citizen seeking justice, but as a nuisance to be swatted away.
Ignoring Supreme Court Precedent: Judge Cooper failed to apply the two-pronged Lindke test properly—or even seriously.
Omission of Key Evidence: The court disregarded clear evidence showing Sajet’s use of social media as an official tool.
Typographical Error: The “Rajet” mistake isn’t trivial—it reflects a larger lack of judicial care and decorum.
Failure to Address Smithsonian’s Legal Status: A central issue—whether the Smithsonian is a public trust or a federal agency—was never resolved.
Unacceptable Delay: Nine months passed after Lindke, despite clear precedent requiring speedy resolution in First Amendment cases.
You can read the full complaint here: https://smithsoninstitution.com/litigation
🧵 Why This Matters
I’m an artist from upstate New York. I’ve never held public office. I’m not a media elite. I simply wanted my voice heard—and my rights respected—when I challenged a publicly funded institution for silencing dissent.
What I got instead was a federal judge who appeared to take my case personally.
Now, that same case has become a reflection of something much larger: the current crisis in judicial credibility. From the Supreme Court’s internal conflicts to district judges bending the rules for favored institutions, trust in the judiciary is reaching historic lows.
And that’s not just a right-wing or left-wing talking point—it’s a constitutional problem.
🤯 The Boasberg Factor
Here’s where it gets even more complex. My complaint will be reviewed by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg, who—just months ago—was the subject of an impeachment resolution in Congress for ruling against Trump-era deportation policies.
This is not a personal attack on Boasberg. But it raises valid questions: Can a judge so recently embroiled in partisan controversy fairly evaluate a misconduct claim against another D.C. federal judge—one who just ruled against a known former Trump supporter and political artist?
That’s not a conspiracy theory. That’s the real, institutional tension playing out in front of us.
🎭 Smithsonian’s Shifting Identity
To add another twist, Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch III recently said in response to Trump’s calls to remove Sajet that the Smithsonian is an “independent entity.” That contradicts what the Smithsonian argued in federal court for years—that it’s the government “through and through,” with full immunity from constitutional challenge.
So which is it?
The Smithsonian can’t be a public trust on paper and a federal agency in court. That contradiction not only cost me my case—it continues to damage the integrity of one of America’s most important cultural institutions.
⏳ What Happens Next?
I’ve also filed a petition for rehearing in my earlier case (17-cv-01240 TNM), which was built on the same legal questions. The courts now have another opportunity to clarify the Smithsonian’s legal identity, and whether government officials can block citizens online while acting in their official capacity.
The judicial complaint, meanwhile, is in the hands of a system that must now judge itself.
Will it choose transparency and accountability—or circle the wagons once again?