On Tuesday, April 8, 2025, the 7th Circuit Judicial Council dismissed the misconduct complaint filed against Judge Stephen Vaden of the Court of International Trade. This ruling follows a controversy in which Vaden, along with 12 other judges, publicly declared a boycott against hiring law clerks from Columbia University. The boycott was a response to the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations related to the ongoing conflict in Gaza.

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.