In September of 2006, the Judicial Conference issued new standards for reporting judges’ participation in corporate-funded judicial junkets “aimed at aiding and enhancing judges’ compliance with established ethical obligations.” As Chief Justice Roberts has stated, “I don't think special interests should be allowed to lobby federal judges.” The new reporting policy was designed to increase transparency and bolster confidence in the integrity of the federal judiciary, which had taken a beating after years of embarrassing conflict of interest and junketing stories involving dozens of federal judges.

However, a Community Rights Counsel (CRC) review of public reporting by judges shows that 80 days after the January 1, 2007 effective date of the new policy, not a single junket has been reported.

The reason is simple: the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) is applying the policy in a way that seems designed to delay the reporting of information as long as possible.

“Inexplicably, the AO has given a big exemption for any junket taken in 2007 where a judge was 'invited' in 2006. The AO knows that judges’ schedules are typically booked months in advance, so the loophole delays the effective date of the policy for months, if not years,” said CRC Executive Director Doug Kendall.

Administrative staff for the federal bench has not released a single page of information produced by junketing organizations even though the policy demands that the AO “promptly post the information on the Judiciary’s website (www.uscourts.gov) so that it is publicly available and available to judges.”

The Public Affairs office of the AO has told a CRC attorney that, contrary to the plain language of the policy, the information produced by junket providers will be promptly available only to the judges. The AO intends to make this information publicly available only after a judge takes a trip and reports it. This could be many months after the information is initially produced, allowing the ethically questionable trips to take place, bypassing public pressure that could be created by having to tell the public about junkets before they take place.

Finally, the AO seems determined to make judges’ reporting of junkets as difficult as possible to monitor.

• Nearly three months after the effective date of the policy, many courts do not even have the software required for compliance;
• Some of the local courts do not have anything about the reporting requirements on their websites;
• Some courts that do have the information post it in difficult to find locations with no link from the website’s homepage;
• Judges’ reporting will be listed only on each local court website, and this information will not be made available in any centralized, user-friendly location; and
• Getting comprehensive information on judicial junkets will require the regular monitoring of more than 200 court websites, thwarting the policy’s stated goal of providing increased transparency and accountability.

In introducing the reporting policy, Chief District Judge Thomas F. Hogan, chairman of the Judicial Conference’s executive committee, said that the new rules showed that some criticisms “have been taken to heart by the judiciary.” According to Kendall,“ the new approach to junkets endorsed by Chief Justice Roberts and Judge Hogan does not seem to have filtered down to the bureaucrats in charge of implementing the policy at the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The staff serving Chief Justice Roberts does not seem to get it.”

The failed implementation of the new policy highlights the need for a legislative ban on judicial junkets, particularly with judges seeking a big pay increase from Congress. “Judges deserve a raise,” said Kendall, “but only if they give up these junkets.”

If you have questions or comments about this website or
Community Rights Counsel email us!

© 2005 Community Rights Counsel. All rights reserved.