Steven M. Colloton, the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, has dismissed a misconduct complaint against a federal judge who participated in a boycott of hiring law clerks from Columbia University.
The decision, made public after the 8th Circuit’s judicial council declined to review it on Thursday, highlights ethical concerns about judicial actions aimed at influencing private institutions.
The judge in question, who is apparently U.S. District Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the District of North Dakota, was among 13 federal judges who signed a letter announcing they would not hire Columbia graduates as law clerks. The boycott stemmed from the judges’ disapproval of how the university managed disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Traynor was not identified in Colloton’s April 8 ruling, but he is the only judge from the group within the 8th Circuit.
In his decision, Colloton noted that Traynor had no prior notice that participating in such a boycott could raise ethical issues, making it unfair to hold him accountable for misconduct. However, Colloton acknowledged that the boycott raises significant questions about its potential impact on the judiciary. Specifically, he pointed out concerns about whether such actions could undermine public confidence in the courts or prejudice the administration of justice. While the boycott was limited in scope, Colloton warned that widespread adoption of similar practices could entangle the judiciary in public controversies unrelated to its core functions.
Colloton suggested that the issue warrants further examination by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the body responsible for interpreting the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. He emphasized that the question of judges using their authority to pressure private institutions, such as universities, to align with their personal views could set a problematic precedent if broadly accepted.
Similar ethics complaints against other judges involved in the boycott have also been dismissed. Among them are Judge James C. Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans and Judge Elizabeth Branch of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. These dismissals indicate a pattern of judicial councils finding insufficient grounds for misconduct in these cases, though the ethical implications remain under scrutiny.
Colloton’s ruling highlighted that many allegations in the complaint against Traynor were unsubstantial. However, he described the concerns about the boycott’s potential to erode public trust in the judiciary as more significant. He cautioned that if judicial boycotts based on contemporary issues became common, they could draw the courts into extrajudicial debates, potentially weakening their perceived impartiality among the public.
The decision underscores a broader discussion about the boundaries of judicial conduct and the appropriate use of a judge’s influence. While Traynor and the other judges faced no formal consequences, Colloton’s remarks signal a need for clearer guidance on how judges should navigate actions that extend beyond their judicial duties. The matter now rests with the U.S. Judicial Conference, which may consider studying the issue to provide direction for the federal judiciary moving forward.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
