2023 UPDATE -- FEDERAL JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE

press  chart

CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT --
Judicial Misconduct/Impeachment Complaints

U.S. House of Representatives

House Judiciary Committee -- Republican Majority -- Jim Jordan

House Judiciary Committee -- Democratic Minority -- Jerrold Nadler

House Judiciary Committee/Courts Subcommittee -- Republican Majority -- Darrell Issa

House Judiciary Committee/Courts Subcommittee -- Democratic Minority -- Hank Johnson 

"Report on the Activities of the 105th Congress" (Jan 2 1999)

"Report on the Activities of the 106th Congress" (Jan 2, 2001)

"Report on the Activities" -- 107th Congress" (Jan 2, 2003) pp. 256-7:   Review of Operations of the Federal Judicial Misconduct and Recusal Statutes

The Subcommittee conducted an oversight hearing on Judicial Misconduct on November 29, 2001. Testimony was received from the following witnesses: The Honorable William L. Osteen, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina; Professor Arthur D. Hellman, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; Michael J. Remington, Partner, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP; and Douglas T. Kendall, Executive Director, Community Rights Counsel. The hearing reviewed the operations and effectiveness of the Code of Conduct for U.S. judges, which governs Federal judicial misconduct, including the so-called ‘‘disability and discipline’’ act (28 U.S.C. § 372 (c)), and two recusal measures (28 U.S.C. § 144 and § 455). Specifically, the purpose was to determine whether the affected judicial committees, judicial councils, and the Judicial Conference accord appropriate consideration to those complaints brought before them; the general willingness of judges to police their colleagues and recuse themselves from cases when necessary; whether appropriate disciplinary measures are taken when warranted; and any other possible misuse or abuse of these statutes which might compromise the integrity of and public confidence in the Federal judiciary. Judge William L. Osteen testified that judges do not neglect their ethical obligations by attending private education seminars. He further testified that over the past few years the relative number of reported problems regarding judges recusal practices were small, and that nevertheless, the judiciary has taken numerous steps to correct those problems which were identifiable. Professor Arthur Hellman recommended that the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 should be amended to explicitly recognize the authority of the chief judge to conduct a limited inquiry into the validity of the complaint as well as the ability to dismiss the complaint if the limited inquiry demonstrates that the allegations lack any factual foundation or are conclusively refuted by objective evidence. Section 372(c)(3)(A) should more fully specify other bases for dismissal that can be identified on the face of a complaint, and the Act should be amended to permit petitions for review to be considered by a standing or rotating panel of the judicial council, rather than by the entire council. In order to ensure that judicial conflict of interests are properly dealt with, all federal courts should post on their web sites conflict lists for all judges of that court. 28 U.S.C. § 46(c) should be amended to make clear that recused judges are not counted as part of the majority for purposes of this statute. Michael J. Remington approved the 1980 Act in its current structure but felt that the public and practicing bar were largely unaware of its existence. He stated that the Committee should examine whether any of the National Commissions’ recommendations have continuing merit, necessitating statutory or administrative implementation, and that the issue must be taken in context with an understanding of the informal methods utilized in the areas of judicial misconduct and disqualification. Douglas T. Kendall stated that the Judicial Conference should enact reforms that prevent the appearance of impropriety currently stemming from private judicial seminars; that there should be more effective penalties to enforce judges’ disclosure obligations and the ban on ruling in cases in which a judge owns stock; that judges should be required to maintain an up-to-date ‘‘recusal list’’ available to litigants (without advance notification of the judge) at the clerk’s office; and unless there is a threat to a particular federal judge, that financial disclosure forms should be made immediately unavailable to those requesting review. In response to issues brought forth in this hearing, Chairman Coble introduced H.R. 3892, the ‘‘Judicial Improvements Act of 2002.’’ The legislation proposes to reorganize the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 by recodifying it as a new chapter of title 28 of the U.S. Code, and clarifies the responsibilities of a circuit chief judge in making initial evaluations of a complaint. The testimony of Professor Hellman and Mr. Remington were critical in the drafting of H.R. 3892. See H.R. 3892 above for legislative history.

                 Operations of Federal Judicial Misconduct and Recusal Statutes, November 29, 2001 (Serial No. 45)

"Report on the Activities" -- 108th Congress (Jan 2005)

"Report on Activities"  -- 109th Congress (Jan. 2, 2007) (pp. 49-

p. 63:  The Subcommittee has oversight responsibility for four entities located within the Federal Judicial Branch: (1) the Judicial Conference of the United States; (2) the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts; (3) the Federal Judicial Center; and (4) the State Justice Institute. ...During Chairman Sensenbrenner’s tenure, the Subcommittee has devoted much time and resources to enhancing judicial ethics and investigating instances of judicial misconduct. Pursuant to discussions with Chairman Sensenbrenner and former Chief Justice Rehnquist during the 108th Congress, Justice Breyer was appointed to head an ad hoc judicial commission to review the judicial misconduct and recusal statutes to determine whether they are serving the public interest. This commission developed its findings and reported them on September 19, 2006, which should lay the groundwork for further amendments to the Judicial Councils Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (the ‘‘1980 Act’’) in the 110th Congress."

"Report on Activities" -- 110th Congress (Jan. 3, 2009) (pp. 147)

OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES The Federal Judicial System The Subcommittee has responsibility for oversight of the Judicial Conference of the United States; the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts...as well as judicial ethics and discipline. In the 110th Congress, the Subcommittee also examined how the salaries of federal judges have impacted the ability to maintain a qualified and experienced federal bench. On April 19, 2007, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on Federal judicial compensation. The witnesses were Supreme Court Presiding Justices Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito. Both witnesses testified to the threatened impact and outcomes of the decline in real pay of Federal judges. In response to this hearing, Chairman Conyers introduced H.R. 3753, the Federal Judicial Salary Restoration Act of 2007, on October 4, 2007.

pp. 151-52:

Federal Judicial Compensation, Serial No. 110–48 This hearing explored the issue of judicial compensation and whether the decline in real wages of federal judges is impacting the continuity, quality, and experience on the federal bench. Article III, section 1, of the Constitution guarantees that federal judges shall ‘‘receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.’’ While the dollar figure on wages has not been decreased, the real wages of federal judges have decreased. As Chief Justice Roberts noted in his 2006 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Federal judges now earn less per year than many large law firms’ first-year associates who are fresh out of law school and may still be awaiting bar exam results. Since 1987, district judges’ salaries have been adjusted at the same rate as those of Members of Congress. In 2007 they earned $165,200. Since 1969, average U.S. worker’s wages, once adjusted for inflation, have risen 17.8 percent in buying power. Real pay for judges has declined 23.9 percent during the same time, creating a 41.7% gap. The witnesses at this hearing reiterated Chief Justice Roberts’ assertion that the departures of 38 judges who have left the federal bench in the past six years, including 17 in the last two years, are largely the result of that pay gap and that departing judges often cite financial pressures as their reason for leaving. The Chief Justice argued in his year-end report from 2006 that ‘‘[t]he dramatic erosion of judicial compensation will inevitably result in a decline in the quality of persons willing to accept a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.’’ Following this oversight hearing, Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Berman introduced H.R. 3753, bipartisan legislation sponsored by both the Majority and Minority Leaders to provide a 29% across the board increase in base salary for federal judges. The bill was ordered reported by the Committee by voice vote with an amendment offered by Reps. Berman and Smith. This amendment provided a 29% pay raise for federal judges and made changes to the judicial pension system. Article III judges are eligible to receive a 100% annuity upon retirement if they meet certain age and service requirements. The substitute adopted by the Committee lengthened service requirements for federal judges who wish to receive the full benefit of the pay raise as an annuity upon retirement. The substitute also increased the workload of senior judges and reduced the annuity for those judges who retire and earn salaries in excess of the amount of their annuity. The text of H.R. 3753 as ordered reported was adopted as an amendment in the nature of a substitute by the Senate Judiciary committee and further amended before being ordered reported. No further action was taken on the legislation in either body. The following witnesses appeared and submitted a written statement for the record: The Honorable Stephen G. Breyer, Presiding Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC and the Honorable Samuel A. Alito, Presiding Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Washington, DC.

"Report on the Activities" -- 111th Congress (Jan 3, 2011)  (pp. 104, 106, p. 111-112)

    "Examining the State of Judicial Recusals after Capterton v. A.T. Massey", December 10, 2009 (Serial No. 111-118)                 VIDEO

"Report on the Activities" -- 112th Congress (Jan. 2, 2013)  (pp. 75-84)  112th Congress  (Dec. 29, 2011)  (p. 37)

"Report on the Activities" -- 1st session 113th Congress (Dec. 20, 2013)

p. 39:   An Examination of the Judicial Conduct and Disability System (Serial No. 113–25) On April 25, 2013, the Subcommittee held an oversight hearing to examine the Federal Judicial Conduct and Disability Process and related issues. The hearing consisted of the following witnesses: (1) the Honorable Anthony J. Scirica, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; (2) the Honorable David B. Sentelle, Senior Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; (3) Professor Arthur D. Hellman, Sally Ann Semenko Endowed Chair, University of Pittsburgh School of Law; and (4) Mr. Russell Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, Governance Studies Program, the Brookings Institution.

VIDEO:  April 25, 2013 hearing:  "An Examination of the Judicial Conduct and Disciplinary System" 

transcript & record  (Serial #: 113-25)                

"Report on the Activities" -- 2nd session 113th Congress  (Dec 22, 2014)  -- p. 69 -- Nov. 25, 2013 hearing

"Report on the Activities" -- 114th Congress (Dec. 23, 2016)  (p. 64)  (Duff) -- single witness
"The Judicial Branch and the Efficient Administration of Justice (Serial No. 114–83) On July 6, 2016, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the Judicial Brand and the efficient administration of justice. The hearing also identified additional issues that deserve further Congressional attention for future hearings, such as judicial alignments and resources. The single witness for the hearing was Mr. James Duff, Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court.


"Report on the Activities"  -- 115th Congress (Dec. 31, 2018)  p. 55

"Report on the Activities" -- 116th Congress  (Jan. 1, 2021) (p. 75, 78)

• The Federal Judiciary in the 21st Century: Ideas for Promoting Ethics, Accountability, and Transparency On June 21, 2019, the Subcommittee held a hearing on whether there should be legislation requiring the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics for itself, whether there should be greater transparency of the financial disclosures of federal judges, and whether changes to the recusal process would be beneficial. The hearing consisted of the following witnesses: (1) Professor Amanda Frost, American University Washington College of Law; (2) Prof. Charles Gardner Geyh, Indiana University Maurer School of Law; (3) Gabe Roth, Executive Director, Fix the Courts; and (4) Russell Wheeler, Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institute."

"Maintaining Judicial Independence and the Rule of Law: Examining the Causes and Consequences of Court Capture On September 22, 2020, the Subcommittee held a hearing to examine the potential influence of outside money, often from anonymous sources, on the judicial selection, nomination, and decisionmaking processes of federal judges. The hearing consisted of two panels. Panel one consisted of the following witness: (1) The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI), U.S. Senator. The second panel consisted of the following witnesses: (1) Amanda Hollis-Brusky, Associate Professor of Politics, Pomona College; (2) Nancy Gerner, Retired U.S. District Court Judge and Senior Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School; (3) Tom Ginsburg, Leo Spitz Professor of International Law and Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago; (4) Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute."

transcript & testimony 116-86

"Report on the Activities" -- 117th Congress

U.S. Senate

Senate Judiciary Committee -- Democratic Majority   -- Chair Dick Durbin

Senate Judiciary Committee -- Republican Minority  -- Ranking Member Lindsey Graham

Senate Judiciary Committee/Courts Subcommittee -- Democratic Majority -- Chair Sheldon Whitehouse

Senate Judiciary Committee/Courts Subcommittee -- Republican Minority -- Ranking Member John Kennedy

Report on the Activities" -- 114th Congress

"Report on the Activities" -- 115th Congress
    p. 35: LYNCH, LORETTA E., of New York, to be Attorney General, vice Eric H. Holder, Jr. Jan. 7, 2015—Referred. Jan. 28, 29, 2015—Full Committee hearing, S. Hrg. 114– (Serial No. J–114–2). Feb. 12, 2015—Committee held over in executive session. Feb. 26, 2015—Approved by the Committee and ordered reported favorably. Feb. 26, 2015—Reported to the Senate by Sen. Grassley, without printed report. Apr. 21, 2015—Motion to proceed to executive session to consideration of nomination agreed to in the Senate by voice vote. Apr. 22, 2015—By unanimous consent agreement, debate and vote 4/23/2015. Apr. 23, 2015—Cloture invoked in the Senate by a vote of 66 yeas to 34 nays. Apr. 23, 2015—Confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 56 yeas to 43 nays. NAMORATO, CONO R., of Virginia, to be an Assistant Attorney General, v

"Report on the Activities" -- 116th Congress"

EVER SINCE

28 USC 144   28 USC 455

Press

July 19, 2023
"Dems start round one in Supreme Court ethics 'boxing match'"
Politico (Katherine Tully-McManus, Burgess Everett)

"Senate panel to vote on Supreme Court code of ethics mandate"
Roll Call (Michael Macagnone)

"US Senate Democrats pursue Supreme Court ethics legislation"

Reuters (John Kruzel)

Common Cause

October

April 13, 2023
"Why doesn't the Supreme Court have a formal code of ethics?"
Politfact- Poynter Institute (Matthew Crowley)

May 1, 2023  Steve Vladeck

April 10, 2023
"The Conservative Legal Movement Is Basically an Elite Social Club"
New Republic (Matt Ford)

April 10, 2023
"The Democrats Need to Destroy Clarence Thomas's Reputation"
New Republic (Mike Tomasky)

Democrats and liberals, it is often said, are “process-oriented,” which means that they respect process and they think rules-bound means leading to rational ends. The “proper venue” for scrutinizing Thomas is the court itself; then perhaps tougher application of ethics laws (which is up to the court’s justices); then, if all else fails, maybe impeachment, but most Democrats would be terrified of that.

What they don’t understand, which Republicans do, is that no one pays attention to all that. People pay attention to narrative. Clarence Thomas is already a mocked and disrespected figure in American public life, which is not thanks to Democrats, really, but to great reporters like the ProPublica trio (Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott, and Alex Mierjeski) and The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer and The New York Times’s Danny Hakim and Jo Becker and others who’ve done the digging that, as far as we know, Democrats in Congress with vast investigative staffs and budgets have never bothered to do.

January 5, 2012
"Judicial Ethics and the Supreme Court"
NYT (editorial)

April 14, 2023
"The Ethics of Nine of the Most Powerful People in America"
NYT (editorial)

April 25, 2023
"Roberts declines Senate request to testify on court ethics"
The Hill

April 25, 2023
"Law Firm bought Gorsuch-owned property"
Politico (Heidi Przybyla)

April 27, 2023
"Roberts memo threatened to challenge ethics rules"
The Lever (Andrew Perez, Julia Rock)

April 28, 2023
"Supreme Court's refusal to adopt code of conduct is nothing but petulance"
Roll Call (Charles Gardner Geyh)

May 1, 2023
"Supreme Court needs a code of conduct, says judicial experts"
NPR -- WNYC   & here

May 1, 2023
"Partisan clash expected during Supreme Court ethics hearing"
Roll Call (Michael Macagnone)

May 4, 2023
"Tightening Supreme Court Ethics Rules Faces Steep Hurdle"
NYT (Charlie Savage)

May 8, 2023
"A Crisis of Ethics at the Supreme Court"
NYT (

June 1, 2023
"Why Alito, Kagen recusal decisions at Supreme Court raised eyebrows"
The Hill  (Zack Schoenberg)

July 6, 2023
"Federal Judge Defends Clarence Thomas in New Book"
NYT (Carl Hulse)

July 9, 2023
"Where Clarence Thomas Entered an Elite Circle and Opened the Door to the Court"
NYT (Abbie VanSickle, Seve Eider)

July 9, 2023
"NY Times puts out another left-wing hit piece on Justice Clarence Thomas,
as media, Dems undermine an institution they can't control"
Miranda Devine

"NY Times' (latest) failed hit on Clarence Thomas: new attack on democracy"
NY Post (editorial)