A judge appointed by Ronald Reagan has stepped down from his lifelong role in Massachusetts to voice his concerns about what he perceives as serious misconduct and misuse of power within the Trump administration.

Senior U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolfe, who received his nomination in 1985, announced that he officially relinquished the position he cherished last Friday. He explained that he can “no longer endure the constraints on what judges may say publicly or accomplish outside the courtroom.”

In an op-ed for The Atlantic, Wolfe expressed his concern that “President Donald Trump is manipulating the legal system for partisan goals, targeting opponents while shielding allies and donors from scrutiny, prosecution, and potential penalties.” Wolfe noted, “This contradicts everything I have upheld in my over 50 years with the Department of Justice and as a judge. The White House’s attack on the rule of law is profoundly unsettling to me, prompting a need to speak out. Remaining silent is no longer an option.”

Throughout his four-decade tenure, Wolfe oversaw numerous notable cases, such as the trials of notorious criminals James “Whitey” Bulger and Stephen “Rifleman” Flemmi, and their FBI contact. He emphasized that his rulings were always grounded in the facts and the law, devoid of political bias or personal inclination, as justice should be “administered fairly to all, without fear or favor.”

The former federal prosecutor enumerated his concerns with Trump’s Justice Department, particularly the president’s apparent tendency to initiate legal action against his political adversaries.

In the op-ed, Wolfe cites Trump’s social media post directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey as prime examples of individuals being targeted for prosecution without sufficient evidence. Trump’s own appointee to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in Virginia — where James and Comey were indicted — was forced to resign after questioning the validity of indicting Comey. The prosecutor was later replaced by one of Trump’s former personal attorneys, although the legality of her appointment is yet to be decided.

On the other side of the coin, Wolfe also highlighted Trump’s penchant for shielding his donors and supporters from legal consequences. An especially egregious example of such an action, according to Wolfe, involved White House Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Tom Homan:

In September of last year, Tom Homan, who became Trump’s “border czar,” reportedly was recorded accepting $50,000 in cash in return for a promise to use his potential future public position to benefit a company seeking government contracts. The FBI had created the fictitious company as part of an undercover investigation. Typically, an investigation of that sort would have continued after Homan became a Department of Homeland Security official, with the FBI seeking any additional evidence of bribery. However, after Trump took office, the investigation was shut down, with the White House claiming there was no “credible evidence” of criminal wrongdoing. Weeks after the FBI investigation was reported, Homan denied taking $50,000 “from anybody” and has said he did “nothing criminal.” An honest investigation could reveal who is telling the truth.

Noting that he’s been a senior judge since 2013 — meaning his resignation will not allow Trump to appoint another judge because his successor has already been appointed — Wolfe surmised that he could do more to uphold the law by speaking out against the current administration than by remaining on the bench.

He emphasized that his colleagues in the federal district courts throughout the nation have been “admirably deciding a variety of cases” generated by Trump’s “unprecedented actions,” and their work has effectively been negated by the U.S. Supreme Court at nearly every turn. The conservative bloc of justices, three of whom were appointed by Trump, have repeatedly removed injunctions and restraining orders issued by lower courts by deciding emergency motions through the court’s “shadow docket.” Such rulings typically include very little, if any, explanation for the court’s decision.

“I doubt that if I remained a judge I would fare any better than my colleagues,” Wolfe wrote.

Since Trump took office in January, the Supreme Court has issued 23 rulings via the shadow docket, with 20 of them going in favor of the administration, according to a tracking project from the Brennan Center.

“I resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations dedicated to protecting the rule of law and American democracy. I also intend to advocate for the judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves,” Wolfe wrote. “Others who have held positions of authority, including former federal judges and ambassadors, have been opposing this government’s efforts to undermine the principled, impartial administration of justice and distort the free and fair functioning of American democracy. They have urged me to work with them. As much as I have treasured being a judge, I can now think of nothing more important than joining them, and doing everything in my power to combat today’s existential threat to democracy and the rule of law.”