Contact: Jesse Rutledge, 202-588-9454

Justice at Stake Praises New Federal

Judicial Misconduct Rules, Outlines Further Steps

WASHINGTON, DC – The Justice at Stake Campaign praised the Judicial Conference of the United States for improving its procedures for handling misconduct complaints against federal judges.  The Campaign noted that several of its official recommendations had been adopted.  The new mandatory Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial Disability, authorized by the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 and adopted March 11, include procedures for filing and reviewing complaints, investigations, confidentiality and transparency, and remedies for misconduct.

Justice at Stake also urged the Conference to consider additional steps to strengthen the Rules.  “The new Rules are a watershed accomplishment,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake.  “But more could be done to reassure the public that the federal courts, entrusted with awesome powers and independence under our Constitution, are sufficiently transparent and accountable.”

Two Justice at Stake partners, the American Bar Association and the American Judicature Society, also submitted formal comments to the Conference last year.

When Justice at Stake submitted its comments on October 15, 2007, it wrote:  “Our system of checks and balances requires that the judiciary be co-equal and independent.  But unless courts are accountable, public support for judicial independence will wither.  Since political attacks on the independence of the courts are on the rise, this is the right time to make the federal judicial conduct review procedures the nation’s best.”

In many cases, Justice at Stake’s suggested amendments appear to have been incorporated in whole or part in the adopted version.  Justice at Stake agreed with many of the provisions as drafted.    In a few instances the Rules fall short of Justice at Stake’s recommendations: 

Using the Internet to Publish All Public Information:  For a complaint process to be meaningful, the public must have both adequate access to information and an understanding of how complaints are filed and handled throughout the process.  Justice at Stake recommended that each federal court be required to use the internet to post more detailed information about the scope of the Act, the complaint process, and the disposition of complaints.  But the Rules adopt different dissemination standards for different kinds of public information, allowing courts to hold back some information in office filing cabinets, to be made available only if someone asks for it. 

For example, Rule 6 provides that complaint forms be available on courts of appeals websites or from the circuit clerk or any district court or bankruptcy court in the circuit.  Similarly, Rule 24(b) says that final orders in cases must be accessible in an office or put on the court’s website. On the other hand, the Rules do require that orders of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability be posted on the internet.  In the 21^st century, limiting dissemination to those who know to call—and where to call—is no longer an adequate standard for professional organizations, much less the world’s leading judiciary.  More than 7 in 10 Americans uses the internet to search for information.  Although it is not sufficient in itself, internet access ought to be a minimum standard...