As a major investigative story in The Washington Post today (April 18, 2006) documents, eight years after judicial junkets and judicial stock conflicts became front page news they remain major problems undermining the judicial branch. The story, based on research by Community Rights Counsel (CRC), documents that at least 11 federal judges violated federal law either by ruling in a case despite owning stock in a party or by failing to report a judicial junket on their financial disclosure forms.
- For background documentation on judges in The Washington Post article that ruled while owning stock click here.
- For background documentation on judges in The Washington Post article that took expense-paid private trips to resorts without reporting them click here.
These problems remain because the judiciary has not taken the steps necessary to combat them. While the judiciary has touted its efforts to educate judges on ethical mandates, it has to date rejected all efforts to limit judicial participation in junkets and to post up-to-date recusal lists (a list of all of the judges’ disqualifying financial holdings) at local courthouses and on the internet.
Indeed, in important ways, the judiciary has responded to these ethical issues in a way that has had the predictable result of making the problems worse.
- In 2004, the judiciary rewrote the key ethical guidance to federal judges on taking junkets in a way that, according to a Post editorial, gave "A Green Light to Junkets."
- Since the mid-1990's, the judiciary's Financial Disclosure Office has been instructing judges to disclose junkets as a "reimbursement" not a gift, and not to estimate a value for these trips.
- In the late 1990's, the judiciary eliminated the requirement that judges certify on their disclosure forms that they have not participated in any cases in which they have a financial interest.
- In 1998, the judiciary lobbied for and won a change in federal law that allows broad redaction of financial disclosure forms. The result is to hide stock conflicts, and junkets from public view.
Senator Leahy introduced legislation in 2003 that would have addressed these serious problems by banning junkets and requiring the posting of recusal lists. Representatives of the Judicial Conference – the judiciary’s policy making body -- convinced Senator Leahy to pull this measure to give the judiciary one last chance to "self-regulate." Instead, as mentioned above, the judiciary's Code of Conduct Committee made things worse by loosening the ethical standards for junkets.
In response, Senator Leahy has reintroduced legislation that would address these problems, The Federal Judiciary Ethics Reform Act of 2006 (S. 2202). The legislation would ban junkets while providing public funding for any needed judicial education. It would also require judges to make their recusal lists publicly available.
As the new head of the Judicial Conference, Chief Justice John Roberts should work with Senator Leahy in solving these problems. There is reason for optimism that the new Chief Justice will take these problems seriously. Senator Russ Feingold asked John Roberts about the issue of judicial junkets at his confirmation hearing and Roberts committed to studying the issue if confirmed. He also stated, helpfully, that it is “clear that special interests should not be able to lobby federal judges.”
For more information on CRC's effort to ban corporate judicial lobbying at judicial junkets, click here. For more information on CRC's work on exposing stock conflicts, click here.
|
