A Trump-appointed federal judge from Ohio will now preside over Sen. Marsha Blackburn’s lawsuit against former special counsel Jack Smith after every active judge in the Middle District of Tennessee recused. Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Raymond M. Kethledge designated U.S. District Judge Douglas R. Cole, and a court order issued Wednesday reassigned the case to him.
The reassignment ends a procedural stall that began soon after Blackburn filed her 46-page complaint on September 30. The suit remains in the Middle District of Tennessee, but an outside-district judge will decide it.
For conservatives watching the aftermath of Smith’s investigations, the move matters because it finally puts a named jurist over claims that federal power was turned against a sitting senator. The underlying constitutional questions are still unresolved. The court has not ruled on the merits.
Two days after Blackburn filed, U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger withdrew and returned the case to the clerk. On October 5, Chief U.S. District Judge William L. Campbell Jr. entered a broader order. It stated that all district judges in the Middle District of Tennessee had recused and that the Sixth Circuit would designate a judge from outside the district.
The Wednesday order closed that loop. Newsweek reported the reassignment language in full.
"All District Judges of the Middle District of Tennessee have recused in this matter," the new order said. "Chief Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has designated United States District Judge Douglas R. Cole to preside over the case. Accordingly, the case is hereby reassigned to Judge Cole."
The four active judges who stepped aside were Campbell, Trauger, Eli J. Richardson, and Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. Campbell and Richardson were appointed by President Trump. Trauger was appointed by President Bill Clinton. Crenshaw was appointed by President Barack Obama.
Kethledge, appointed by President George W. Bush, made the designation. Federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 455 requires judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The statute also lists personal bias, prior involvement, financial interests, and specified relationships. The October 5 order gave no public explanation for the recusals and did not identify which provisions applied.
Cole sits in the Southern District of Ohio. Trump nominated him in 2019. The Sixth Circuit covers federal courts in both Tennessee and Ohio, so the designation kept the case inside the same appellate circuit while moving it off the recused bench.
Cole is also presiding over the federal prosecution of William Davenport DeFoor, a Cincinnati man. DeFoor pleaded guilty on September 1 to engaging in physical violence against property in restricted grounds and willfully damaging U.S. property. The charges stem from damage at Vice President JD Vance’s home. Each offense carries a maximum prison term of 10 years. Neither statute imposes a mandatory minimum. Cole has not yet sentenced him.
Earlier, Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman ordered DeFoor detained after a January 13 detention hearing. Prosecutors argued he should remain jailed. Defense attorney Paul Montague Laufman sought release to a psychiatric facility with electronic monitoring. Bowman cited escalation concerns and said she was not satisfied the proposed conditions would ensure safety.
Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican, sued Smith personally and named the Justice Department as a relief defendant. Her complaint centers on phone toll records obtained during the Arctic Frost investigation into events surrounding certification of the 2020 presidential election.
According to her filing as described in the reporting, investigators subpoenaed records from a cellphone she used for legislative purposes. The records showed who she communicated with and the timing and duration of those contacts. The complaint does not allege that the contents of calls were obtained.
Blackburn’s office said the subpoena issued on May 25, 2023, and that she did not learn the records had been obtained until October 6, 2025. The complaint further alleges that Smith and other officials obtained a nondisclosure order that kept Verizon from alerting her, and that investigators did not tell the company or the court considering the secrecy order that the targeted records belonged to a sitting senator.
She claims violations of the Speech or Debate Clause, the First Amendment, and the Fourth Amendment. She also challenges the constitutionality of Smith’s appointment as special counsel, arguing that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland lacked statutory authority and that the appointment violated the Appointments Clause. She seeks declaratory and injunctive relief plus nominal damages. Her office said she is seeking $1 from Smith.
Those claims have not been adjudicated. They remain allegations, not court findings.
When she announced the suit, Blackburn framed it as a check on investigative power.
"Through his Arctic Frost witch hunt that targeted conservatives across America and even the President of the United States, Jack Smith perpetrated one of the worst abuses of government power in our nation’s history," Blackburn said.
She added a second point on institutional limits.
"This lawsuit is solely about holding Mr. Smith accountable and ensuring that our nation’s justice system can never again be weaponized against the American people," she added.
Margaret Harker, an attorney representing Blackburn through the New Civil Liberties Alliance, said the group had been notified of the recusals but received no additional information on the basis for them. She offered a forward-looking statement after the Cole assignment.
"We look forward to vindicating Senator Blackburn’s civil liberties as the case continues," Harker said.
Blackburn’s office also said Smith’s investigation sought toll records belonging to at least 20 members of Congress, all Republicans, as well as roughly 400 Republican individuals and organizations. Prior litigation involving Republican Rep. Scott Perry’s cellphone during a related investigation produced a more fact-specific approach, as earlier coverage noted.
Smith has disputed the broader characterization of the records work. As previously reported, he has said investigators obtained toll records, not the contents of lawmakers’ communications, and that his office consulted the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section before issuing the subpoenas.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the reassignment, citing the pending litigation. No public results have been released about how Smith has formally answered the complaint in court beyond those earlier characterizations. Investigators and the parties will still need to litigate the Speech or Debate, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Appointments Clause claims before any court can decide them.
Authorities have not publicly confirmed why every active Middle District of Tennessee judge stepped aside. The October 5 order did not spell out the § 455 ground. Harker’s team received notice of the recusals without a detailed basis. Case caption and docket number details were not included in the available court descriptions tied to the reassignment coverage.
Procedurally, the designation solves the immediate problem of who will hear the case. The lawsuit can move past the reassignment bottleneck. Cole will confront threshold questions about standing, privilege, the scope of toll-record collection, the nondisclosure order, and the legality of the special counsel appointment. None of those issues has been decided.
The political backdrop is plain in the parties’ own framing. Smith twice brought federal criminal charges against Trump. Blackburn’s complaint treats Arctic Frost as an abuse aimed at conservatives. Smith’s side has described the records work as limited to toll data after Public Integrity consultation. A federal judge now has to separate constitutional argument from campaign rhetoric and apply the law to a concrete record.
With Cole assigned, the ordinary civil track resumes: responsive pleadings, motions practice, and eventual merits briefing if the case survives early challenges. Because the Justice Department is named as a relief defendant and Smith is sued personally, the court may also face questions about official-capacity versus personal-capacity relief and about what injunctive language, if any, could bind future investigators.
Nominal damages of $1 would not enrich anyone. They would, if awarded after full litigation, mark a formal finding that a right was violated. Declaratory relief could clarify the boundaries of subpoenas aimed at congressional communications metadata. Injunctive relief would depend on what the court finds the Constitution requires. None of that is guaranteed. It all turns on proof and legal rulings still ahead.
Cole’s parallel docket in the DeFoor matter shows he is already managing a politically visible property-damage case tied to the vice president’s residence. That prosecution is separate. It does not decide Blackburn’s claims. It does mean the same judge is handling more than one high-profile matter at once.
When an entire district bench recuses and a circuit chief must import a judge, the public is entitled to a clear process and a fair hearing on whether federal investigators respected constitutional limits. Courts exist to answer that question with evidence and law, not press releases.
