The order detailed allegations of harassment, verbal abuse, and erratic behavior by the judge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Instances cited included the judge demanding weekly updates on approximately 200 cases from clerks and subjecting them to “verbal browbeating” if they failed to provide immediate, precise details. Another incident involved the judge banging on a bathroom door while a clerk was inside, declaring, “that’s my bathroom.”

While the order did not reveal the judge’s identity, NPR sources identified her as U.S. District Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby, of Maryland. Griggsby, 58, was appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate in 2021 for a lifetime tenured position.

Judge Griggsby did not immediately respond to requests for comment. James Ishida, the circuit executive, also had no immediate response, and a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts declined to comment.

Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which oversees Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, signed the order. The order stated that some allegations “may be explained by poor communication, unstated assumptions, or misunderstandings between the judge and the law clerks.”

Judge Diaz also acknowledged a workplace culture where clerks were hesitant to ask questions and experienced health issues linked to the stress of their clerkships. Both the complaining clerk and their co-clerk transferred out of Judge Griggsby’s chambers before completing their two-year terms; one clerk served only two-and-a-half months before transferring.

The Fourth Circuit’s investigation involved interviews with a judicial assistant and former law clerks, who shared similar experiences. Despite the intense atmosphere, most indicated they would still work for the judge.

Judge Diaz’s order noted the unnamed judge’s cooperation with the investigation and agreement to corrective measures, including mentoring, workplace training, and informing new clerks about approaching the chief judge with concerns.

The Legal Accountability Project filed a formal complaint last year against a different federal judge, Sarah Merriam of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Aliza Shatzman, founder of The Legal Accountability Project, described the newly public complaint as “just the latest in a long line of examples of the outrageous lack of accountability for federal judges who abuse their power by mistreating clerks.”

Shatzman noted the lengthy time it took to investigate the case, potentially exposing more law clerks to mistreatment. She also expressed doubts about the effectiveness of corrective actions in changing a judge’s chambers’ dynamics.

Source: NPR

The post Federal Judge Acknowledges Abusive Behavior Towards Clerks appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Second Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Debra Ann Livingston dismissed the ethics cases. In her orders, filed in October, Chief Judge Livingston stated that the timing of a judge’s decision to take or reconsider senior status does not inherently imply misconduct.

The controversy surrounding Judge Wynn began when he notified President Joseph Biden of his intention to take senior status in January 2024. Following a retirement celebration in March and President Biden’s nomination of a successor, Judge Wynn reversed his decision in December 2024 after the presidential election and his successor’s failure to pass the Senate.

This reversal drew criticism from figures such as U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Thom Tillis, who labeled it a “brazenly political” move. The Article III Project’s complaint characterized Judge Wynn’s action as a “public rebuke of the winner of the presidential election,” and similar complaints were filed against Judges Cogburn and Marbley, who also withdrew their plans for senior status after the 2024 election.

Chief Judge Livingston defended her decision by noting that the Code of Conduct for federal judges does not dictate when or whether a judge must retire. She added that while Canon 5 of the code prohibits judges from engaging in political activity, Judge Wynn’s decision and subsequent reversal did not express any political views.

While Chief Judge Livingston acknowledged that reversing a senior status decision is “unusual and unfortunate,” she emphasized that retirement remains a personal decision for judges. She cautioned that scrutinizing the timing of such decisions could undermine the independent judgment of judges who possess life tenure.

Source: Law360

The post Ethics Complaints Against Federal Judges Over Senior Status Reversals Tossed appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The judges are grappling with how to adhere to the Supreme Court’s guidance while also fulfilling their constitutional duty to provide detailed rulings in complex cases.

Judge James Wynn, an Obama appointee, voiced concerns about the lack of direction from the Supreme Court, stating that the circuit and district courts are left in limbo. He suggested the Supreme Court could easily provide more clarity in its rulings. Wynn also emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court providing reasoning for their decisions to aid lower courts in following the law.

“They cannot get amnesia in the future because they didn’t write an opinion on it. Write an opinion,” Wynn said. “We need to understand why you did it. We judges would just love to hear your reasoning as to why you rule that way. It makes our job easier. We will follow the law. We will follow the Supreme Court, but we’d like to know what it is we are following.”

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a Reagan appointee, noted that the Supreme Court’s actions must have significance. “It doesn’t do these things just for the kicks of it,” Wilkinson added.

The uncertainty stems from a July order where the Supreme Court stated that lower courts must follow its rulings on the emergency docket, even in cases that have not yet been fully reviewed by the high court.

The 4th Circuit judges are not the first to raise concerns about the Supreme Court’s emergency docket decisions. U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs previously stated that the Supreme Court’s rulings on the Trump administration’s efforts to end government grants lacked clarity and sometimes appeared to shift the law without sufficient explanation or consensus.

Similarly, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston struggled to interpret a Supreme Court emergency order regarding Education Department layoffs and its effect on a case involving the dismantling of smaller government agencies. The 1st Circuit panel ultimately determined that the cases were not similar enough to warrant applying the Education Department ruling.

The public discussion among the 4th Circuit judges highlights the ongoing confusion in lower courts about how to implement the Supreme Court’s emergency docket decisions, particularly when detailed reasoning is absent. This issue is compounded in a case concerning access to Social Security Administration data by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

In June, the Supreme Court overruled the 4th Circuit’s decision and lifted an injunction against DOGE’s use of the data. The Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, stated that the injunction would remain on hold until the case returned to the Supreme Court, without providing a substantive rationale for the lower court.

During the arguments, some of the 15 judges present suggested issuing a one-line opinion to lift the injunction and return the case to the Supreme Court. Other judges argued they were obligated to consider and rule on the case, regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee, noted that some colleagues believed no further work was necessary due to the Supreme Court’s guidance. Judge Robert King, a Clinton appointee, cautioned against prematurely ending the case, emphasizing the oath and duty of the court.

Source: Politico

The post Appeals Court Judges Call on Supreme Court to Provide More Clarity in Emergency Rulings appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Roof, who was convicted for the 2015 shooting that killed nine Black churchgoers at a Charleston, South Carolina, church, sought a writ of mandamus to challenge the judge’s continued involvement as he attempts to overturn his conviction and death sentence.

In his petition, Roof claimed that Judge Gergel exhibited bias against him during the original trial proceedings. However, a three-judge panel ruled that Roof’s request did not satisfy the legal requirements necessary for such an extraordinary court action. Mandamus is typically granted only when there are no alternative avenues for relief, a clear right to relief is evident, and the court deems it suitable under the circumstances.

The court found that Roof’s allegations against Judge Gergel were largely based on hearsay and lacked substantial evidence to prove bias. The panel noted that even if the judge held negative views about Roof, those opinions, formed through the trial process, would not justify recusal.

Additionally, the court emphasized that Roof still has other legal options available, including the right to appeal if his petition to overturn the conviction is denied. While the case involves the death penalty, the court indicated that this factor alone does not automatically warrant the use of mandamus.

Ultimately, the panel declined Roof’s request to remove Judge Gergel.

Source: WLTX

The post Dylann Roof’s Request to Remove Judge Richard M. Gergel Denied by Fourth Circuit Court appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

This decision comes after a request from the North Carolina State Board of Elections to transfer the dispute regarding the recent state Supreme Court election back to federal jurisdiction. The appellate judges upheld a previous ruling by a federal trial judge which determined that the case should remain in state court, maintaining a state order that blocks the certification of Democrat Allison Riggs as the election winner. Riggs currently holds a narrow lead over Griffin, with a margin of 734 votes out of approximately 5.5 million ballots cast during the November 5 election. Griffin has alleged that more than 65,000 votes are “unlawful,” prompting his legal challenges.

A hearing has been scheduled for Friday in Wake County Superior Court to address Griffin’s allegations regarding the ballots. The North Carolina elections board and Riggs are opposing Griffin’s claims in this legal battle. The recent ruling from the 4th Circuit requires U.S. Chief District Judge Richard Myers to address any federal issues that may arise after the state courts have resolved the matters related to Griffin’s state law challenges.

On January 6, Judge Myers had opted not to hear the case, instead remanding it to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The 4th Circuit’s unanimous decision pointed out that the state Supreme Court’s January 22 ruling, which rejected Griffin’s request for a writ of prohibition against the elections board, effectively made the appeals concerning the district court’s abstention moot.

The judges noted, “Because the Supreme Court of North Carolina has dismissed the case the Board asks us to retrieve, we cannot grant the relief the Board requests.” Consequently, the appeals have been dismissed, along with all pending motions in the consolidated cases.

Regarding Myers’ earlier determination to return Griffin’s ballot challenges to state court, the appellate judges affirmed this decision but made modifications. Myers had cited a precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court from 1943, known as Burford, to support his choice not to entertain Griffin’s challenges at the federal level. However, the appellate panel argued that a different Supreme Court precedent from 1941, known as Pullman, provided a more suitable rationale for Myers’ decision.

The 4th Circuit’s order elaborated that federal courts have the discretion to refrain from resolving cases that involve state law claims and possible federal constitutional issues, particularly if addressing the state law questions could eliminate the need to consider federal issues. The judges stated, “However, under Pullman abstention, the federal court retains jurisdiction of the federal constitutional claims while the state court issues are addressed in state court.”

The panel also highlighted that the state law matters involved in Griffin’s case are unsettled, with the parties presenting conflicting interpretations of North Carolina statutes relevant to the challenges. The judges emphasized that neither party has provided authoritative guidance from North Carolina appellate courts to clarify these issues.

Furthermore, they noted that resolving the state law questions could potentially negate the necessity of addressing the federal claims raised by the elections board in their removal of the case. If the elections board succeeds in Wake County on the state law issues, the appellate judges suggested that the federal claims may not need to be examined.

The ruling mandates that Judge Myers must “expressly retain jurisdiction of the federal issues identified in the Board’s notice of removal should those issues remain after the resolution of the state court proceedings, including any appeals.”

Judges Paul Niemeyer, Marvin Quattlebaum, and Toby Heytens participated in delivering this decision. Niemeyer and Quattlebaum were appointed by Republican presidents, while Heytens was appointed by a Democratic president. The panel had previously heard oral arguments concerning the dispute on January 27.

This recent ruling from the 4th Circuit is expected to facilitate the upcoming hearing in Wake County Superior Court, where decisions about Griffin’s ballot challenges could subsequently progress through the North Carolina Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court. If federal issues arise during these appeals, the case may revert to Judge Myers for further consideration.

Source: The Carolina Journal

The post 4th Circuit Refuses to Transfer NC Supreme Court Election Case Back to Federal Court appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Judge Ponsor’s essay, published on May 24, 2024, claimed that any judge with reasonable ethical standards would recognize the act of flying such flags as “improper” and “dumb.” His comments followed media reports about Alito’s homes displaying flags associated with supporters of then-President Donald Trump during the January 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

The Article III Project, a conservative advocacy organization led by Trump ally Mike Davis, filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Ponsor, asserting that he was the one violating ethical standards. The case was subsequently transferred from the Boston-based 1st Circuit Judicial Council to the 4th Circuit Judicial Council in Richmond, Virginia, where Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz conducted the review.

In a ruling issued on December 10, Judge Diaz determined that Ponsor’s public criticism of a Supreme Court justice undermined public confidence in the judiciary. He pointed out that the essay’s political implications conflicted with the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, which prohibits public commentary on the merits of pending cases. Although Ponsor’s essay did not reference any specific case, Diaz noted that it coincided with calls for Justice Alito to recuse himself from two cases related to the Capitol riot, which Alito ultimately chose not to do.

The cases in question included Trump’s appeal for immunity concerning efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. The Supreme Court ruled in July that Trump could not be prosecuted for actions taken within his presidential authority, and the case was dismissed after he won the November 5 election.

In a letter dated November 20, attached to Diaz’s order, Ponsor expressed regret for his actions, acknowledging that he did not intend to breach the ethical guidelines but recognized that his essay was inappropriate. He stated that moving forward, he would seek guidance from a judicial panel before engaging in any public writing.

Source: Reuters

The post Judge Michael Ponsor’s Public Criticism of Justice Samuel Alito’s Flag Display Deemed Improper appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Wynn, who was appointed by former Democratic President Barack Obama, had initially announced his intention to take senior status—a semi-retirement status that opens a vacancy for presidential appointment—earlier in January. His plans changed without a public explanation in a letter sent to the White House on December 13. This reversal has drawn attention as Wynn is the third judge appointed by a Democratic president to withdraw retirement plans since Trump’s election victory on November 5, 2024.

The Article III Project’s complaint, submitted to the 4th Circuit Judicial Council, claims that Wynn’s decision violated Canons 2 and 5 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Canon 2 mandates that judges act in a manner that upholds public confidence in the judiciary, while Canon 5 advises judges to refrain from political activities. The complaint suggests that Wynn’s change of heart was influenced by the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, noting his prior public retirement celebration in March 2024, which included remarks from Obama.

Wynn’s decision to remain in active service follows the withdrawal of Biden’s nominee to succeed him, North Carolina Solicitor General Ryan Park, whose chances of Senate confirmation diminished significantly. The political landscape shifted after a deal between Senate Democrats and Republicans allowed votes on some of Biden’s remaining trial court nominees while shelving four appellate court nominees, including Park.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis criticized Wynn’s actions as “brazenly partisan,” while outgoing Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell expressed expectations of “significant” ethics complaints against the judge. McConnell also indicated that he anticipates the Trump Justice Department will seek Wynn’s recusal in future cases.

The Article III Project has previously filed similar misconduct complaints against two other judges, U.S. District Judge Max Cogburn from North Carolina and U.S. District Judge Algenon Marbley from Ohio, who also rescinded their retirement plans after the election.

Source: Reuters

The post Trump Ally Files Misconduct Complaint Against Judge James Wynn Over Retirement Reversal appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

In a letter addressed to President Joe Biden dated December 13, Wynn stated that after “careful consideration,” he chose to withdraw his earlier retirement notification, which had been submitted on January 5, 2024. He expressed his apologies for any inconvenience his initial decision may have caused.

Senator Tillis, responding to Wynn’s announcement, described the judge’s decision as a “brazenly partisan decision.” He argued that this action denied President-elect Donald Trump the opportunity to appoint a successor to Wynn’s position. Tillis emphasized that Wynn’s decision was disrespectful to the U.S. Senate, stating it was a “slap in the face” and called for the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the situation. He suggested that Wynn’s actions represented an attempt to politicize the judicial retirement process and warranted ethics complaints and recusal demands from the Department of Justice.

This controversy was particularly significant given the backdrop of recent political tensions surrounding judicial appointments. Wynn’s reversal came in the wake of similar decisions by at least two other federal judges, also appointed by Democratic presidents, who withdrew their retirement plans following Trump’s victory in the recent presidential election.

Wynn, 70, hails from Robersonville, North Carolina, and has a long judicial career, having previously served on both the North Carolina Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court. His decision to stay in his role reflects a broader trend among some judges to reconsider retirement in light of changing political landscapes, especially when a Republican president is poised to make appointments.

The situation echoes past tensions, notably the 2016 refusal by Senate Republicans to hold confirmation hearings for U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, a move that Democrats criticized as political maneuvering within the judicial system.

Source: QCity Metro

The post Federal Judge James A. Wynn Rescinds Retirement Plans, Sparking Criticism from Senator Tom Tillis appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of an Unnamed Magistrate Judge,” with case no. 04-23-90012.

The complainant has filed a judicial complaint against a magistrate judge under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act. This act serves as an administrative remedy for judicial conduct that is prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and for judicial inability to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.

The court reminded that to commence a judicial complaint, a written complaint containing a brief statement of the facts constituting such conduct must be filed. Rules for judicial conduct and judicial-disability proceedings mandate that a complaint must contain a concise statement that details the specific facts on which the claim of misconduct or disability is based.

However, in the present case, the complainant does not raise any allegations in his judicial complaint or in the attachments to his complaint that could be construed as claims of judicial misconduct or disability against the respondent.

Based on these reasons, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit decided to dismiss the judicial complaint.

The Disposition states:

“Accordingly, this judicial complaint is dismissed FILED: February 8, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(i) for failure to allege any misconduct or disability as required by § 351(a).”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Fourth Circuit dismisses judicial complaint against Magistrate Judge for failure to allege misconduct appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is entitled “In the matter of Unnamed District Judge,” with case no. 04-23-90010.

In 2001, a complainant was convicted of armed bank robbery and other offenses and was sentenced to 984 months of imprisonment by the respondent who presided over the trial. The complainant then alleged that the latter violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges by not referring the prosecutor for disciplinary action after discovering that the same had presented false evidence to a federal magistrate judge, to the grand jury, and to the court. However, this is contrary to the fact that the respondent never found that the prosecutor had submitted any false evidence.

The filing states:

“The complainant’s claims, however, are based on a false premise because the subject judge never found that the prosecutor had presented false evidence at any stage of the proceedings. To the extent that the complainant is challenging the subject judge’s rulings in his criminal and habeas proceedings, including the imposition of the prefiling injunction, his claims are subject to dismissal as merits-related.”

Moreover, the judicial complaint also insisted that the respondent should have recused himself from the case because he gained personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts when he presided over earlier related criminal cases.

The filing continues:

“Complainant contends that the judge assigned complainant’s case to himself in an attempt to influence the outcome. An allegation that a judge should have recused himself generally relates directly to merits of the judge’s rulings and must be dismissed.”

Lastly, the judicial complaint charged that the respondent engaged in ex parte communications and “off-the-record briefings” with the FBI and the prosecutor during the proceedings.

The filing further states:

“It appears that the basis for his claim is an internal FBI memorandum stating that the FBI had retested the DNA material, the original results had been validated, the results of the retesting “had been proffered to the judge,” and the prosecutor should be advised of any additional results.”

According to the court, the allegations that the respondent harbored bias, prejudice, partiality, or another improper purpose lacks sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred. Moreover, neither the complainant nor the record presents evidence that the respondent assigned himself to the complainant’s criminal case or that the judge acted with any improper purpose.

In the alleged “ex parte communication” of the respondent with the authorities, the court stated that, contrary to the complainant’s claims, the memorandum neither states nor suggests that the “proffer” was actually an ex parte communication. The complainant thus fails to present sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct exists.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the court decided to dismiss the judicial complaint filed against the respondent.

The Disposition states:

“Accordingly, this judicial complaint is dismissed as merits-related and lacking in evidentiary support pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 352(b)(l)(A)(ii), (iii). The complainant is advised that the filing of “repetitive, harassing, or frivolous complaints” may lead to the imposition of restrictions on the filing of future complaints. Rule IO(a), Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Judicial complaint against unnamed district judge dismissed by the Fourth Circuit appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.