On Sunday, December 15, 2024, The Volokh Conspiracy published an article detailing the ongoing judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Stephen Vaden of the U.S. Court of International Trade. This complaint has garnered attention following a boycott initiated by Vaden and twelve other federal judges against Columbia Law School, which was in response to allegations of antisemitism on the campus.
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
