Pervasive judicial misconduct raises question: Who’s in charge here?

(Reuters) – House Democrats announced last Wednesday that they would reform judicial integrity procedures after an investigation found more than 130 federal judges violated laws and ethics rules by being involved in cases involving businesses in which they or their family members owned shares.

Sixty-one judges or their families were even trading these stocks while the cases were in court, according to the Wall Street Journal report dated 28th.

The findings follow on from Reuters’ Teflon Robe investigation last year which found thousands of state and local judges across the country in the past 12 years violating ethical rules, including lying to state officials and serving up racists Explanations. At least 5,206 people were directly affected, but most of the criminal judges largely escaped punishment or accountability, even for shocking behavior such as illegal detention and sexual abuse, Reuters found.

In the past six years alone, news organizations have uncovered similar patterns of slow and lenient disciplinary action for judges who commit wrongdoing in Illinois, South Carolina, and Louisiana, including investigations by Injustice Watch, The Advocate, and ProPublica.

In 2017, a major scandal involving multiple allegations of inappropriate sexual behavior by former appellate judge Alex Kozinski led to a review of the federal courts’ handling of sexual harassment. But just last month Laura Minor, a former equal opportunity commissioner and secretary of the two administrative agencies that oversee federal courts, told the Washington Post that judges are still routinely circling cars to shield one another from complaints of wrongdoing.

Taken together, the revelations indicate systemic ethics violations, an ubiquitous forbearance even to serious violators, and a lack of public accountability among US judges.

These problems call into question the judges’ systems of self-regulation, but there has been no serious public debate on the issue. While it is unusual for judges to speak out in public, the silence of the highest officials in federal courts – such as US Supreme Court Justice John Roberts – on these revelations of wrongdoing acts like a waiver of responsibility and hinders a necessary public Discussion and Reform.

The Supreme Court Media Office did not respond to my questions for this column. The administrative office of the court told me that it provides safeguards against conflicts of interest and is “looking for ways to improve”.

Neither bureau responded to questions about whether Roberts would raise the investigation publicly.

James Alfini, law professor at the South Texas College of Law and co-author of Judicial Conduct and Ethics, said it was important that the court and chief judge speak out given the severity of the results.

“The revelations in the investigation are verging on scandal, so what role must the court play in revitalizing federal justice?” said Alfini. “This would be a good time for the court to step forward and reassure the American public that they are taking this seriously and that they have a plan. (Roberts) has a responsibility to do so as the Chief Justice of the United States. “

Most of the blatant violations found by the Wall Street Journal were committed by judges in the 94 federal district courts in the United States. The financial conflicts of interest extend across all 12 multi-state districts (which oversee the district courts).

The report does not include comments from senior district court judges. Two district court chiefs, both personally implicated in misconduct, made statements. Timothy Batten Sr., presiding judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, said he was unaware of the conflict because his retirement account is being managed by a broker. Rodney Gilstrap, chief judge for the Eastern District of Texas, said he did not consider a cancellation necessary as he was minimally involved in the cases.

Other judges expressed regret and reaffirmed their commitment to obey the law. Some said they were negligent or lazy. Others offered explanations that misrepresented the law and accused their employees of faulty internal procedures.

The office described the financial conflicts of interest revealed in the journal report as unintentional. The results were “worrying,” the bureau said, adding that it would look carefully at the matter.

It is unclear how the MA found that 131 recently reported cases of misconduct were unintentional or what its review will do: the Authority does not have the power to investigate the misconduct identified during the investigation. That is the jurisdiction of the individual districts that oversee the districts of the guilty judges.

The office is headed by a director – also a federal judge – and a deputy, both of whom Roberts has appointed by law. It operates under the direction of the main judicial decision-making body – the Judicial Conference – which is also chaired by Roberts.

The leadership of the Justice Conference consists of the highest judges of each Federal Court of Justice and works through a network of committees. Roberts has sole power to convene the conference and appoint committees, as well as extensive powers to decide what matters are to be considered.

In other words, much of the oversight of federal justice operations and policies rests with the Chief Justice. This is in part why Robert’s official title is actually Chief Justice of the United States.

This administrative structure – like the very existence of the administrative office or the justice conference – is not well understood by the public. And it was this faceless, obscure entity that was, if you will, responsible for the entire US federal judicial system.

Roberts and other chief justices before him have generally avoided informing the public about the courts or their administration of the institution, contrary to traditional principles of public office. For example, Roberts’ comments and the operational changes made following the 2017 revelations on sexual harassment in the judiciary were extracted from a factual annual report by the press and the public.

Democratic lawmakers said last week that they will reintroduce laws that will make judicial financial disclosures public and require the Supreme Court to pass a code of ethics for judges themselves. Still, it is up to the judges of the Federal Court of Appeals, and Roberts in particular, to provide direct answers to the public.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which are committed to integrity, independence and bias under the trust principles.

Hassan Canoe |

Hassan Kanu writes about access to justice, race and equality. Born in Sierra Leone and raised in Silver Spring, Maryland, Kanu worked in the public interest after graduating from Duke University School of Law. He then spent five years reporting mainly on labor law. He lives in Washington, DC. Reach canoe at hassan.kanu@thomsonreuters.com