The judicial panel’s decision stated that judges possess significant discretion in establishing their criteria for selecting law clerks. According to the council, Vaden’s choice to refrain from hiring clerks from institutions that do not promote “civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech, and viewpoint nondiscrimination” falls within acceptable judicial conduct. The ruling emphasized that the boycott does not undermine the integrity of the judicial office or erode public trust in the judicial system.

The misconduct complaint against Vaden was one of several filed against judges who signed the May letter addressing their concerns about Columbia University. These complaints were reviewed by chief judges from the same judicial regions, but Chief U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts transferred Vaden’s case to the 7th Circuit to avoid any potential conflicts of interest. Ultimately, the council ruled in favor of Vaden, affirming that his actions were justifiable within the framework of judicial discretion.

The legal representation for Vaden included the Christian conservative organization First Liberty Institute and prominent attorney Lisa Blatt, known for her advocacy in the U.S. Supreme Court. Hiram Sasser, the executive general counsel of First Liberty Institute, expressed satisfaction with the outcome, framing it as a victory against perceived attempts to politicize judicial processes.

In their May letter, Vaden and his colleagues labeled Columbia University an “incubator of bigotry,” asserting that the institution had failed to foster a respectful environment for diverse viewpoints. The judges claimed that Columbia became a focal point for antisemitism and disruptions that compromised the educational experience. They declared that they would not hire law clerks from Columbia, starting with students who commenced their studies in the fall of 2023.

The other judges who joined the boycott included U.S. Circuit Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch, who have similarly engaged in boycotts against hiring clerks from Yale and Stanford due to issues related to conservative speech on those campuses. This collective action by the judges has raised significant discussions about judicial independence and the implications of political beliefs in hiring practices.

The misconduct complaint against Vaden was lodged in June by an unnamed individual with a criminal history that includes convictions for arson and terrorism, specifically related to attacks on Jewish places of worship. The complainant alleged that Vaden’s actions constituted a breach of judicial ethics by engaging in politically charged activities that could diminish public confidence in the judiciary. The complaint called for Vaden’s disqualification from cases involving the Columbia community and suggested that he should be removed from his position.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Judge Stephen Vaden Cleared of Misconduct Over Columbia Law Clerk Boycott appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Judge Vaden, who was appointed to the bench in 2020 by President Donald Trump, signed a letter alongside his colleagues on May 6, 2024. The letter condemned incidents of antisemitism at Columbia University that arose after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Subsequently, a misconduct complaint was filed against him by an inmate convicted of terrorism and vandalism offenses. Notably, this inmate has no ties to Columbia University or any cases that may come before Judge Vaden.

The complaint against Judge Vaden is currently under consideration by the Seventh Circuit’s Judicial Council. This referral comes despite the dismissal of similar complaints against judges in the Fifth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit, and the Court of Federal Claims. Each of these complaints was dismissed with detailed explanations affirming that they lacked merit. Chief Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the complaint on June 18, 2024, while Chief Judge Priscilla Richman of the Fifth Circuit dismissed the complaint on June 24, 2024. Similarly, Chief Judge Elaine D. Kaplan of the Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint on October 1, 2024.

The judicial misconduct process is characterized by significant confidentiality. According to 28 U.S.C. § 360(a), all documents and records related to these proceedings are confidential and cannot be disclosed unless specific conditions are met, including written consent from both the judge involved and the chief judge of the circuit. This confidentiality has led to questions regarding the nature of the proceedings against Judge Vaden and why they continue despite the dismissals in other circuits.

The referral of Judge Vaden’s case to the Seventh Circuit raises further questions about the judicial process. Chief Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade requested the transfer of the complaint, citing “exceptional circumstances,” which Chief Justice John Roberts approved. This decision is notable given that similar complaints had already been dismissed in other circuits without a transfer being deemed necessary.

Judge Vaden’s situation is further complicated by the political affiliations mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 251 for judges on the Court of International Trade, which stipulates that no more than five judges may belong to the same political party. While Judge Vaden is affiliated with the Republican Party, Judge Barnett was appointed by former President Barack Obama, which adds a layer of political complexity to the proceedings.

The Court of International Trade plays a critical role in overseeing trade-related cases, including those involving tariffs and customs, which will become increasingly significant in light of potential upcoming trade decisions by the Trump administration. The court does not employ random assignments for cases; instead, the chief judge assigns specific judges to specific panels. This system may influence how Judge Vaden’s case and future cases are handled.

As of now, the proceedings in the Seventh Circuit remain confidential, leaving many details undisclosed. The ongoing nature of the complaint against Judge Vaden has prompted scrutiny and speculation about the judicial misconduct process and the implications for the Court of International Trade.

Source: The Volokh Conspiracy

The post Judicial Misconduct Complaint Against Judge Stephen Vaden for Columbia Boycott Referred to Seventh Circuit appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The document notes that Justice Gorsuch recused himself from five cases involving the University of Colorado while serving as an adjunct professor at its law school. This information was made public through a detailed record of his recusals provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2017.

Justice Barrett, who taught at Notre Dame Law School before her appointment to the Seventh Circuit, employed a “conflicts sheet” to identify potential conflicts of interest. This sheet was integrated into the conflict-checking systems of the lower courts, automatically excluding her from cases where the university was involved. However, while Barrett’s specific recusal instances were not disclosed, her teaching position was acknowledged in the conflicts sheet submitted to the courts.

In contrast, the report points out that judges at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law have shown minimal recusal activity despite their adjunct roles. Fix the Court’s investigation revealed a lack of recusal from many judges associated with the university, with only one notable exception: Judge Algenon Marbley, who recused himself from a case in 2015, shortly after resigning from the university’s board.

The report also examines the case of Judge Judith Levy of the Eastern District of Michigan, who heard a case involving the University of Michigan earlier this year. Although she remains associated with the university as a potential adjunct professor, she did not recuse herself, raising questions about her impartiality. This decision contrasts sharply with that of Sixth Circuit Judge Ray Kethledge, who recused himself from a significant 2012 en banc case concerning the state’s ban on considering race in college admissions due to his ties with Michigan Law.

Fix the Court argues for a uniform standard for recusal among judges in similar financial and situational contexts. The organization emphasized that judges with equivalent financial arrangements and connections to parties involved in litigation should demonstrate consistent behavior regarding recusal.

The report critiques a three-judge panel from the Sixth Circuit, which ruled last year that recusal is not mandatory for judges serving as adjunct professors at law schools affiliated with parties in a case. The panel referenced rulings from three other circuit courts that arrived at similar conclusions under comparable circumstances.

To bolster its call for transparency, Fix the Court has sent a letter to the Judicial Conference’s Codes of Conduct Committee, urging the release of key government documents related to judicial ethics, including the Guide to Judiciary Policy and the Compendium of Selected Opinions. The organization argues that public access to these materials is essential for assessing the potential need for recusal in specific instances.

The report concludes with the assertion that an objective observer familiar with cases involving a university where a judge is employed would likely expect that judge to recuse themselves, particularly when financial compensation is involved. Despite established practices from Justices Gorsuch and Barrett, along with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recusal in a related affirmative action case, many judges continue to resist recusal in similar contexts.

Fix the Court’s findings and requests for increased transparency aim to foster public trust in the judicial system by ensuring judges adhere to consistent ethical standards regarding recusal.

Source: Fix the Court

The post Report Reveals Inconsistent Recusal Practices Among Judges with Law School Ties appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

DuPont was unanimously removed from office six years ago after numerous judicial canon and campaign finance violations during his 2016 reelection campaign against Malcolm Anthony. An investigation found that DuPont fabricated false criminal records about Anthony’s wife and daughter and posted them online without verifying the accuracy of the information. The Supreme Court also determined that DuPont violated canons by ordering an unlawful seizure of $180 from a defendant during a family court hearing.

Additional violations included holding a first appearance hearing without attorneys present in order to suit his campaign schedule. The justices found DuPont showed “reckless disregard for the truth” and that his actions damaged confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. It was the most severe recommendation of removal from the Judicial Qualifications Commission, which DuPont is the first 7th Circuit judge to receive since 1997.

In the wake of being removed from the bench, the Florida Bar also suspended DuPont from practicing law for 90 days in 2019. However, DuPont has since filed papers last week to run for circuit judge against incumbent Rose Marie Preddy in Group 11 of the 7th Circuit, which covers Volusia, Flagler, Putnam, and St. Johns counties.

If elected, it would allow DuPont a path to return as a judge just six years after being deemed unfit for office by the state Supreme Court. His candidacy filing comes ahead of the qualifying period from April 22-26.

Source: The Daytona Beach News-Journal

The post Ex-Judge Scott DuPont Seeks Comeback in 7th Circuit After Supreme Court Removal for Campaign Violations appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Specifically, Judges Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Staci M. Yandle, and David W. Dugan had each made statements indicating they would automatically grant requests for oral arguments on motions if the party informed the court that a “newer, female or minority attorney” would be arguing the case. In response to criticism of these plainly unethical policies, Chief Judge Diane S. Sykes ruled on the misconduct complaint on behalf of the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council.

The ruling represented a partial victory for the complainants. Judges Rosenstengel and Yandle agreed to rescind the problematic policies. Additionally, Judge Dugan disclosed that he had privately withdrawn his similar policy statement in October 2022. However, the judicial conduct panel declined to outright condemn the judges’ original discriminatory orders.

While acknowledging the judges took steps to remedy issues raised, the ruling avoided directly criticizing the impropriety of their initial actions. It also seemingly accepted uncritically the judges’ new claims that they had never actually granted or denied arguments explicitly due to attorney attributes like sex, despite the clear implication of their prior public statements.

America First Legal remained dissatisfied with the gentle treatment provided to the judges in the ruling. In particular, representatives found it implausible that Judges Rosenstengel and Yandle would not follow through on their commitments to preferential treatment as announced, or that their goals were purely centered on expanding opportunities rather than promoting certain demographic groups.

The ruling represents an ongoing debate about balancing judiciary collegiality with fully holding members accountable for potential ethical lapses. Though three judges altered problematic policies, some view the judicial council’s ruling as failing to sufficiently reprimand clearly discriminatory actions. Regardless, the complaint triggered reforms and shed light on questionable preferential policies in an Illinois federal court.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post 7th Circuit Judicial Council Addresses Bias Allegations Against Three Illinois Judges appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The letter addressed concerns raised by Senators John Kennedy of Louisiana and Ted Cruz of Texas about orders issued in 2020 by District Judges Nancy Rosenstengel, Staci Yandle, and David Dugan in Illinois’ Southern District. The orders encouraged greater participation in oral arguments by newer, female, and minority attorneys. Under the policies, attorneys could notify the judges if a less experienced female or minority lawyer would be arguing a motion, and the judges would consider giving them extra time or allowing a senior lawyer to assist.

However, Chief Judge Sykes said she could not discuss specifics because America First Legal, a conservative legal group, had filed a misconduct complaint claiming the policies discriminate based on race and sex.

In the letter, Sykes reassured the senators that the 7th Circuit is committed to ensuring no discrimination is allowed. She cited mechanisms available for addressing potential bias, like processes for misconduct complaints or employment disputes.

The senators argued the district court policies were unconstitutional in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling ending the consideration of race in college admissions. But Sykes noted the 7th Circuit had not conducted related training and would consider legal developments’ administrative impacts.

It remains unclear how the 7th Circuit will address the allegations of discrimination in the diversity policies or whether any remedial action will be taken. Chief Judge Sykes’ letter sought to assure impartiality and anti-bias commitment while a limited investigation is ongoing due to the pending misconduct case. This story may continue to develop as that complaint proceeds.

Source: Reuters

The post U.S. Judge Diane Sykes Responds to Senator’s Concerns Over Diversity Policies in Illinois Federal Courts appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Scharf, appearing on the Dan Proft Show, a radio talk program in Chicago, said the judges in question – Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Judge Staci M. Yandle, and Judge David W. Dugan of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois – should be instructed on equal protection principles.

“I think these federal judges should be remanded back to the first year of law school constitutional classes that they apparently missed. Equal protection means equal protection, that’s just not a distinction you’re allowed to make under the law,” Scharf said.

The policies at issue grant requests for oral arguments “if practicable” and “strongly consider” allocating more time if the requesting party intends to have a less experienced, female, or minority attorney argue the motion.

Scharf criticized this approach as “setting up a segregated system of justice depending on the color of your counsel,” calling it “absolutely insane.”

His remarks came in response to a judicial misconduct complaint filed against the three judges by the conservative legal group America First Legal.

In the complaint filed on January 25 in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, America First Legal argues the judges are violating federal judicial conduct rules and the equal protection clause by implementing preferences based on characteristics like race and sex.

The group contends allocating argument time and opportunities based on protected traits is not a valid means of increasing participation. It insists the policies will necessarily mean less time is available for attorneys who are not of favored groups.

America First Legal has requested the termination of the “discriminatory” standing orders and the issuance of public reprimands against the judges. However, it does not challenge any specific rulings.

In criticizing the policies, Scharf echoed the argument that considering protected traits like race in this manner violates principles of equal protection. His remarks illustrate the controversy generated by the judges’ stated aim to promote diversity through their courtroom procedures.

The complaint remains pending before the federal judiciary. How it is ultimately resolved could impact the debate over the permissible bounds of diversity initiatives within the legal system.

The post Missouri AG Candidate Scharf Tells Federal Judges to Retake First Year Of Law School appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The complaint alleges that Chief District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Judge Staci M. Yandle, and Judge David W. Dugan have established policies that discriminate on the basis of sex and race when granting oral arguments in cases. Specifically, the policies aim to increase opportunities for “newer, female, and minority attorneys” in courtroom proceedings.

According to the complaint filed with the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges’ standing orders say that after a motion is fully briefed, parties can request oral argument and specify their intent to have a less experienced, female, or minority attorney argue the motion if granted. The orders then state the court will grant such requests for oral arguments “if practicable” and “strongly consider” allocating more time beyond what would normally be given.

America First Legal, represented by attorney Gene Hamilton, argues these policies constitute unlawful discrimination and violate judicial conduct rules. The complaint contends the judges are violating federal judicial conduct rules. It also claims the policies violate the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment.

Specifically, the group contends the stated aim to encourage participation of certain groups is not a valid reason to use protected class preferences like race or sex. It argues the policies are not narrowly tailored to increase opportunities and inevitably means less argument time will be available for attorneys who are not of favored races, sexes, or experience levels.

The complaint requests the chief judge terminate the discriminatory standing orders, publicly acknowledge the policies violate judicial conduct rules, and issue public reprimands or censures against the three judges. It does not challenge any specific rulings but the propriety of the announced policies themselves.

America First Legal insists the mere existence of discriminatory policies undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, regardless of whether the judges follow them in practice. It also claims the downstream effect could be increased incentives for law firms and clients to also discriminate in staffing cases and hiring attorneys.

The group argues the misconduct process is the proper way to remedy the situation, as a direct or interlocutory appeal would not fix the ongoing damage caused to the public perception of fairness in the courts. It provides copies of the judges’ standing orders as evidence and says their intent to discriminate based on protected characteristics is clear on the face of the policies.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.

The post Conservative Legal Group Files Complaint Against Illinois Federal Judges Over Discriminatory Hearing Policies appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

The case is styled as ‘In Re Complaint Against Three Judges’ with Case Nos. 07-22-90100 through -90102.

A judicial complaint was filed by the complainant accusing three circuit judges of misconduct. The complainant alleges that the judges’ decision on appeal implies an implicit bias toward the police officer profession, does not understand the consequences of the “Blue Wall of Silence”, and failed to follow the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and enforcement guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The complainant further alleged that the judges denied him federal and state whistleblower protections, and did not afford him rights under the National Labor Relations Board or the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.

Judge Rovner dismissed the complaint stating that the complainant’s allegations concern the merits of the judges’ decision, thus, were not proper grounds for a misconduct complaint. Moreover, Judge Rovner ruled that the allegations of implicit bias of the subject circuit judges are unsupported and must be dismissed.

The dismissal of the complainant’s judicial complaint was pursuant to § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii) and (iii), which states:

“After expeditiously reviewing a complaint under subsection the chief judge, by written order stating his or her reasons, may dismiss the complaint if the chief judge finds the complaint to be directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or frivolous, lacking sufficient evidence to raise an inference that misconduct has occurred, or containing allegations which are incapable of being established through investigation”

Accordingly, the Judicial Council after its review of the relevant materials denied the complainant’s petition for review and upheld Judge Rovner’s Memorandum and Order.

The complainant is no longer entitled to any further review.

A copy of the original filing can be found here. 

The post Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit upheld Circuit Judge’s dismissal of complaints against three circuit judges for implicit bias toward police profession appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.

Judge Sykes’ concluded the complaint pursuant to 28U.S.C.§352(b)(2) (the chief judge may conclude the proceeding if “action on the complaint is no longer necessary because of intervening events”); and the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings 11(e) (“The chief judge may conclude a complaint proceeding in whole or in part upon determining that intervening events render some or all of the allegations moot….).

The second complaint makes the same factual allegations as in the first complaint but requests different relief, including an investigation and an order vacating the judge’s rulings. Again,  Judge Sykes dismissed the same in its Memorandum and Order, stating among others:

“Nothing in this second complaint requires further investigation or inquiry. The judge’s cases have been reassigned. He is no longer performing judicial work and will retire on September 1. To the extent that the complainant questions the judge’s rulings in other parties’ cases and asks for an order vacating those decisions, his complaint is both merits related and improper.”

28 U.S.C. § 352 (b) (1) (A) (ii), states:

“Any allegation that calls into question the correctness of an official action of a judge…is merits related” and must be dismissed.

The dispositive portion of Judge Skyes’ Memorandum and Order, reads:

“For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is dismissed pursuant to § 352 (b) (1) (A) (ii). The complainant may petition the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit for review of this order in accordance with Rule 18 (b) of the Rules for Judicial‐Conduct and Judicial‐Disability Proceedings. 28U.S.C.§352(c);. . .  A petition for review must be filed in the clerk’s office of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit not later than 42 days of the date of this order.”

The Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit, on its Order dated September 7, 2022, decreed:

“Having considered the relevant materials, the Judicial Council denies the petition for review and affirms Chief Judge Sykes’s memorandum and order.”  

Stating further:

“This is the final decision. The complainant is not entitled to any further review.”

A copy of the original filing can be found here. 

The post Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denies challenge to judge’s order on judicial misconduct complaint appeared first on AbusiveDiscretion.