"Judge Chutkan has, in connection with other cases, suggested that President Trump should be prosecuted and imprisoned. Such statements, made before this case began and without due process, are inherently disqualifying," the filing explains. "Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome. The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially, or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump."

Despite Chutkan's obvious bias, which should have disqualified her from presiding over this case from the beginning, Stephen Gillers, a legal ethics professor at New York University School of Law, believes the motion will fail.

"I understand why Trump would like another judge, and I understand why Trump would like another venue, but nothing I've heard — including the fact that Judge Chutkan has sentenced harshly other January 6 defendants — would warrant a recusal," he told the Washington Post.

But, Chutkan has a history of making partisan comments about the Capitol riot. In December 2021, during the sentencing of rioter Robert Palmer, Chutkan said, "He went to the Capitol because, despite election results which were clear-cut, despite the fact that multiple court challenges all over the country had rejected every single one of the challenges to the election, Mr. Palmer didn't like the result. He didn't like the result, and he didn't want the transition of power to take place because his guy lost."