On Sunday, May 25, 2025, The Maine Monitor reported that tensions escalated between Maine’s legislative and judicial branches over the handling of ethics complaints against judges. The legislature’s judiciary committee moved forward with a proposal to review the judicial branch’s disciplinary processes, despite warnings from Chief Justice Valerie Stanfill that such actions could violate the state constitution’s separation of powers.
The conflict centers on Legislative Document 1810, discussed during a work session where the committee explored ways to address perceived shortcomings in how the judicial branch disciplines Maine Supreme Judicial Court justices.
Stanfill had previously testified that the judiciary holds exclusive authority to regulate and discipline judges across all courts, asserting that legislative interference would be unconstitutional. Despite this, the committee voted 10-3 to advance an amended version of the bill, which now calls for a study group to examine the judicial branch’s disciplinary procedures rather than directly altering them.
The dispute stems from an ethics complaint filed against Supreme Judicial Court Justice Catherine Connors. In October 2024, the Committee for Judicial Conduct recommended disciplinary action against Connors, marking the first time such a recommendation targeted a Maine Supreme Court justice.
The complaint, lodged by attorney Thomas Cox in January 2024, alleged that Connors acted unethically by not recusing herself from two foreclosure-related cases due to her prior legal work representing banks in similar matters.
In one case, Pushard v. Bank of America, Connors, as an attorney, represented the bank but lost, leading to a precedent favoring Maine homeowners. Years later, as a justice, she participated in Finch v. U.S. Bank, N.A., joining a 4-3 majority that overturned the Pushard precedent in favor of the bank.
Critics argued Connors should have recused herself due to her prior involvement. Connors defended her actions, noting she consulted a judicial advisory panel, which advised that recusal was unnecessary. The Committee for Judicial Conduct initially recommended a public reprimand in December 2024.
The Maine Supreme Court, responsible for final disciplinary decisions, drafted new rules in January 2025 to address complaints against its justices. These rules propose delegating such cases to a panel of lower court judges to avoid conflicts of interest. However, the rules remain unimplemented, and Connors’ case is unresolved, with no clear timeline for completion. Cox expressed concerns to the judiciary committee, suggesting the matter was being ignored.
During the work session, Rep. Adam Lee, a Democrat from Auburn who introduced the bill, referenced Massachusetts, where a panel of lower court judges evaluates allegations against high court justices. The committee’s amended bill avoids direct changes to judicial processes, focusing instead on forming a study group to review Maine’s system.
Judicial spokesperson Barbara Cardone reiterated Stanfill’s stance, calling the study group unconstitutional and questioning its purpose, given the legislature’s lack of authority over judicial discipline. Some lawmakers challenged this, arguing that forming a study group does not infringe on judicial powers.
Cardone noted that the Supreme Court was revising its proposed rules based on public feedback and would release a new draft for further comment, though no release date was provided.
Lee, undeterred, emphasized that the court’s constitutional authority is exercised through legal cases, not legislative testimony, as he moved to advance the bill.
The ongoing clash highlights a broader debate over transparency and accountability in Maine’s judicial disciplinary process, with the legislature seeking greater oversight and the judiciary defending its independence.
Source: The Maine Monitor
