| |
Under Article
III of the United States Constitution federal court judges "hold their
offices during good behavior with compensation which shall not be
diminished during their continuance in office". This has been interpreted
to give lifetime tenure to federal judges. Federal Judges can be removed
only by impeachment. The House of Representatives brings formal charges
against the judge and the judge is then tried in the Senate. If convicted
the judge is then removed. However, this is a very difficult and
protracted process and most infrequent.
This was not always the
case. Good behavior, when discussed in the context of the
government, consisted of a tenure in office whereby the officer would
forfeit her office upon a judicial finding of misbehavior
click here.
In 1980 Congress passed the Judicial Conduct and Disability
Act, (28 U.S.C. §§ 372[c]). In practice it is simply another form of
ineffective self discipline by federal judges. The 1980 act permits any
person to file a complaint with the clerk of the U.S. Appeals Court for
the Circuit on the ground that a federal judge (except Supreme Court
Justices) "has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the courts or........is
unable to discharge all the duties by reason of mental or physical
disability". The Chief Judge upon stating his reasons by written order,
may dismiss the complaint, among others, if he finds that it is
"directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling, or is
frivolous".
If the complaint is not dismissed, the Chief Judge appoints a
special committee to investigate and to file a written report containing
the findings and recommendations with the judicial counsel of the circuit.
The name of the judge is not disclosed without his or her consent. The
judicial counsel may conduct its own investigation and decide which action
if any, should be taken, except for removal. The judicial counsel may also
dismiss a complaint or refer it to the Judicial Conference. Although
§372 makes no provision for confidentiality, local rules
of court provide for confidentiality of the proceedings.
Obviously, the discretionary "may" to dismiss the complaint
under §372(c) has been converted by the Chief Judges and the Judicial
Councils to mean a mandatory dismissal. This is clearly evidenced by the
records of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Court. Almost all
complaints have been dismissed and not one judge was removed for the past
three years. At the most one of two judges are given a private or public
censure. According to the Report the major type of complaint is abuse of
judicial power; prejudice and bias; followed by bribery and corruption;
undue decisional delay; incompetence and neglect; conflict of interest;
mental disability and physical disability.
The records of the
Administrative Office show that for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1999 nationwide 826 complaints against federal judges were
concluded, of these 406 were dismissed by the Chief judges, 416 were
dismissed by the judicial counsels, and 6 were withdrawn. No complaint
reached the Judicial Conference
For the fiscal year ending September 30,
2000 nationwide 696 complaints were filed and 181 cases were pending
from the prior year. 343 complaints were dismissed by the Chief judges
mostly on the ground that the complaint related to a judge’s decision
or ruling. 6 complaints were dismissed on the alleged basis that
appropriate action was taken, however without any information as to
what that actions was. It was said that it was no longer
necessary to take action as to 7
complaints and 3 complaints have been withdrawn. The judicial councils
dismissed 354 complaints and 162 complaints were pending at the end of
the year. Out of all these complaints 2 judges in the 9th Circuit were publicly
censored .
For the fiscal yeas ending
September 2001 nationwide 776 complaints were filed and 150 complaints
were pending from the prior year. 351 complaints were dismissed by the
Chief judges again primarily on the ground that the complaint related
to a judge’s decision or ruling, 4 complaints were dismissed on the
ground that action was already taken, 5 complaints were dismissed
because action was no longer essential and 3 complaints were
withdrawn. The judicial councils dismissed 303 complaint 1 complaint
was withdrawn. Only one complaint resulted in a "private censure"
against a judge in the 9th Circuit. To see news article
on federal judges escape punishment
Click here.
For the fiscal year ending September
2002 nationwide 657 complaints were filed and 112 complaints were
pending from the prior year. The Chief judges terminated 403
complaints and the judicial councils dismissed 377 of the complaints.
62 percent were deemed to be outside of the jurisdiction of 28 U.S.C.
372(c) because the complaints were said to go to the merits of the
case and 38 percent were said to be not in conformity with the
statute, they were frivolous, the appropriate action already had been
taken, action no longer was necessary because of intervening events or
the complaint had been withdrawn. It is further noteworthy that
of the complaints concluded by judicial councils 375 were petitions
for review of the chief judges' dismissal of a complaint. All
these were dismissed without without any action taken. Two
complaints resulted in a single "public censure".
The judiciary's refusal to entertain complaints that are
related to the merits of a decision or ruling arise from the concept of
judicial independence. Based on this judicial independence the judiciary
freed itself from accountability. The imposition of sanctions for
misconduct in their ruling would impose accountability on the judges.
Obviously to avoid accountability the complaints are dismissed.
In response to the criticism of the federal judicial
disciplinary system, in 1990 Congress created the National Commission on
Judicial Discipline and Removal. The Commission was authorized to
investigate and study problems and issues related to the discipline and
removal from office of life-tenured federal judges and to evaluate current
and proposed mechanism for the discipline and removal of federal judges.
The Commission's appointment terminated in 1993 with the issuance of its
final report, with no change to the federal disciplinary system.
In May 2004 Chief Justice William H.
Rehnquist named a panel to investigate the federal courts' handling of
judicial misconduct, "to see if there are any real problems to have a
committee look into. Justice Rehnquist acknowledged criticism by
Congress of judicial handling of ethics issues. Justice Stephen G. Breyer
will chair the six-member panel.
David Sellers, a spokesman for the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, said the panel was created in
response to comments by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James
Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), who told the U.S. Judicial Conference on March
16 that Congress "will begin assessing whether the disciplinary authority
delegated to the judiciary has been responsibly exercised and ought to
continue." The committee will report directly to the Chief Justice and
will be assisted by staff from the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts and the Federal Judicial Center. To read further
click here.
John W. Dean
likewise advocates that complaints against federal court judges be made
public. He is of the opinion that since federal judges are appointed
for life, complaints of their behavior should be open, and sanctions
should be disclosed. He states there is no reason for secrecy to preserve
the federal judiciary's independence, because the Constitution already
does that. So, he states the independence of the judiciary cuts the
other way: With judges effectively immune from impeachment and serving for
life, they ought to be able to withstand a little public scrutiny. To read
the whole article click here.
Rules on gifts
for judges are being overhauled for the first time in 15 years, with a
commission looking at ways to cut down on the trinkets, expense-paid trips
and other freebies given to members of the bench. To read further
click here.
Filing Complaints Against Federal
Court Judges
Depending on in which circuit the federal
court judge sits the complaint is to be filed with the chief judge of that
circuit. There are eleven circuits plus the District of Colombia.
The forms and rules may vary as to these various circuits. For the
addresses and/or the phone numbers for the various circuits and the
District of Columbia click here.
Implementation of the Judicial Conduct
and Disability Act of 1980 A Report to
the Chief Justice on proceedings on complaints in the
federal court. To read report go to
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/breyercommitteereport.pdf
HOME
|
|
