On Friday, October 25, 2024, nonprofit organization Fix the Court released a report highlighting discrepancies in the recusal practices of federal judges who also hold adjunct teaching positions at law schools. The report contrasts the actions of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett during their time on the federal appeals courts with those of multiple judges who have not recused themselves in similar situations.

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