GAINESVILLE, Fla. — The University of Florida Levin College of Law hosted a discussion Monday with Judge Emil J. Bove of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, an event that drew criticism from some faculty members who allege it conflicts with the university’s stated commitment to institutional neutrality.
The event, billed as a “VIP Dean’s Chat,” featured a largely one-sided conversation led by Interim Dean Merritt McAlister, focusing on Bove’s career trajectory rather than addressing controversies surrounding his recent appointments and past actions. The audience was composed primarily of students in professional attire and members of the UF Federalist Society, a conservative legal organization.
Bove’s path to the bench has been marked by political controversy. He served as legal counsel to former President Donald Trump throughout four indictments and a subsequent trial resulting in a conviction on 34 felony counts. Following this, he was elevated to Deputy Attorney General and subsequently nominated to the Third Circuit. His nomination to the appellate court prompted a letter signed by over 80 former judges requesting his rejection, according to reporting by the Independent Florida Alligator.
Concerns about Bove’s commitment to the rule of law extend beyond his representation of a convicted felon. A whistleblower complaint detailed instances where Bove and other officials allegedly discussed circumventing legal scrutiny while considering the implementation of the Alien Enemies Act, a law permitting the deportation of non-citizens with limited due process. The complaint alleges Bove advocated defying court orders to advance the Trump administration’s agenda, reportedly stating, “f— you” and “ignore any such court order.”
Juan Caballero, a legal skills professor and director of the UF Immigration Clinic, expressed concern that the university was “putting its finger on the scale of which side it’s privileging” by inviting Bove. Speaking in his personal capacity, Caballero argued the event violated UF’s institutional neutrality policy. “You are ignoring the very recent past of this highly controversial figure, the nakedly partisan past of this individual, and claim that this is a policy of institutional neutrality,” he said. He further stated that hosting Bove undermines the law school’s role in training future attorneys to respect legal institutions.
Interim Dean McAlister declined to comment on the criticism. During the event, McAlister posed questions to Bove focusing on his personal and professional experiences, such as “What was your law school experience like?” and “What excited you?” Bove emphasized the importance of mentorship and competition within the legal profession, characterizing it as a field where “there’s a winner and there’s a loser.”
Only one question directly addressed the controversies surrounding Bove’s time at the Department of Justice. McAlister framed the question broadly, asking Bove to reflect on “some controversy” and share what he was “willing to share” about the experience. Bove responded by characterizing the disputes as a natural tension between line prosecutors and political leadership within the Justice Department, stating he believed the best course of action was to “sign myself” in response to the disagreements.
Mac Dinneen, a 35-year-old UF law student, suggested the event appeared neutral. “If an onlooker didn’t recognize Bove was controversial coming into the event, they wouldn’t have known from the way it played out,” Dinneen said, adding that the questions were fair and appropriate even without the surrounding controversy. He argued that avoiding confrontational questioning could help the law school attract similar speakers in the future, suggesting the event demonstrated the university’s commitment to avoiding political bias.
Genevieve Guinan, a 26-year-old first-year UF law student, offered a different perspective, stating that true neutrality requires representation of a range of viewpoints. “If they’re going to bring controversial speakers from across the aisle … I don’t witness any problem with that,” she said. “But if they’re subversively taking a non-neutral stance and only bringing speakers representing one side, that would be less acceptable from a neutrality standpoint.”
