On Tuesday, December 24, 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that Chad Mizelle, the incoming chief of staff for the Justice Department, and his wife, Kathryn Mizelle, a federal judge, will face significant ethical considerations due to their interconnected professional roles. This situation raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest as both prepare to fulfill their duties amid their appointments during Donald Trump’s administration.

Chad Mizelle is set to serve as a key adviser to the attorney general, while Kathryn Mizelle currently serves on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Legal experts believe that while ethical dilemmas could arise, the specific circumstances in which these conflicts might manifest are limited. One immediate concern involves the ongoing appeal of a major ruling made by Judge Mizelle, which affects the Justice Department’s approach to civil fraud enforcement.

President Trump announced Chad Mizelle’s anticipated appointment to the senior Justice Department position, following his previous role as a Homeland Security official. The couple’s professional ties necessitate that both adhere to strict ethical guidelines to avoid any appearance of impropriety. According to ethics attorneys, Kathryn Mizelle may need to recuse herself from cases involving policies in which her husband has played a role. Conversely, Chad Mizelle must ensure that he does not engage in discussions about ongoing Justice Department matters in cases presided over by his wife.

Bruce Green, a legal ethics expert from Fordham Law School, noted that if Chad Mizelle is closely involved in a policy being challenged in court, his wife may be required to recuse herself to maintain judicial integrity. Although such relationships are not uncommon in the legal field, experts suggest that potential conflicts may be more pronounced for the judge than for her husband. Litigants in Judge Mizelle’s court could question her impartiality on matters related to the Justice Department, potentially leading to requests for her recusal and voir dire to address concerns about conflict.

Despite these concerns, judicial ethics specialists contend that the appointment is unlikely to result in numerous conflicts of interest. Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University School of Law, stated that the likelihood of Chad Mizelle’s work requiring his wife to recuse herself from cases is minimal, primarily because challenges to Justice Department policies are not often litigated in Florida.

Chad Mizelle’s role as chief of staff may not directly involve him in civil or criminal cases in Tampa, where Judge Mizelle operates. Although he will be involved in the development of policies, it is “highly improbable,” according to Gillers, that challenges to these policies would end up in the courtroom presided over by his wife. If such a case were to arise, however, it would necessitate her recusal.

Under judicial ethical standards, judges are expected to disqualify themselves from cases where their spouses have a significant role, whether as parties, attorneys, or material witnesses. This principle is grounded in the need to uphold the integrity of the judiciary.

An example of a potential conflict was noted in discussions about Judge Mizelle’s recent ruling regarding the constitutionality of whistleblower provisions in the False Claims Act (FCA). In September, she ruled against a provision allowing private individuals to file lawsuits on behalf of the government, and the Justice Department is currently appealing this decision. Renée Brooker, a former DOJ civil fraud section supervisor, emphasized that this case is particularly significant for the department’s policies on pursuing false claims litigation and may raise broader ethical implications beyond the appeal itself.

Brooker, now an attorney representing whistleblowers, referred to the situation as an ethical “gray area,” given the contentious nature of whistleblower constitutionality. She suggested that Chad Mizelle should abstain from discussions related to the FCA’s constitutionality to prevent any appearance of impropriety, especially since his wife is the first federal judge to rule that such whistleblowers are unconstitutional.

Kathryn Mizelle, who was confirmed to her judicial position in 2020, was notably the youngest appointee at 33 years old during the Trump administration. Earlier in her tenure, she gained attention for striking down a mask mandate implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for public transportation.

As Chad Mizelle prepares to assume his role, the legal community will be observing how he and Kathryn Mizelle manage potential conflicts while maintaining the ethical standards expected of their positions.

 

 

Source: Bloomberg Law