Politics

Judges shouldn’t be above the laws they interpret

Published

1 year ago

November 12, 2024

Judges shouldn’t be above the laws they interpret

It was a very bad summer for the federal judiciary.

First, Judge Joshua Kindred of Alaska resigned from the federal bench in scandal after a 20-month investigation uncovered appalling abuse and sexual harassment in his chambersleading to a referral from the Judicial Conference for possible impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Then, back-to-back reports were released — one from the Federal Judicial Center and National Academy of Public Administration, the other from the U.S. Government Accountability Office — underscoring issues that judicial accountability advocates have been raising for years: The federal judiciary’s insistence on insular “self-policing” and internal dispute resolution mechanisms have led to a lack of accountability for judges who mistreat employees.

The federal judiciary’s insistence on insular “self-policing”…have led to a lack of accountability for judges who mistreat employees.

Furthermore, a federal public defender attempted to sue the federal judiciary for allegedly mishandling her sexual harassment complaint, further underscoring the ineffectiveness of self-policing by the third branch.

Given the lack of guardrails to prevent, discipline or redress judicial misconduct, these issues of sexual harassment, discrimination, bullying, abusive conduct and retaliation are pervasive in courthouses nationwide. Law clerks routinely signal that they have not and would not report misconduct to the federal judiciary, as they do not feel protected against retaliation. Worse still, they do not think their concerns will be taken seriously, so they too often suffer in silence.

Despite this pervasiveness, the foundational federal statutes — such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — still do not apply to the judiciary, making it one of the only employers in the entire country whose employees are not protected by federal civil rights laws. This means that these employees cannot access legal remedies and seek financial recourse for harm to their career, reputation and future earning potential.

Simply put, federal judges are above the laws they interpret.

We are not strangers to these issues. They are personal to us both and we have dedicated our careers to fixing them: one of us by serving his constituents as the representative of Georgia’s 4th Congressional District, and before that as a magistrate judge and criminal defense attorney; the other by starting a nonprofit dedicated to providing support and resources to law clerks after experiencing harassment at the hands of the judge she clerked for in the D.C. Superior Court.

We come together to shed light on the fact that harassment in our federal courthouses is rarely shared publicly due to the culture of silence surrounding the judiciary. The enormous power disparity between law clerks and life-tenured federal judges makes it incredibly difficult to speak out.

Fortunately, there is a fix.

…harassment in our federal courthouses is rarely shared publicly due to the culture of silence surrounding the judiciary.

The Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) would extend federal antidiscrimination protections to the more than 30,000 judicial branch employees, including law clerks and public defenders. Judges, the most powerful (and unaccountable) members of the legal profession, should be held to the highest ethical standards, not the lowest. And the antidiscrimination laws they interpret, which apply to all nonjudicial civilian government employees, should apply to them, too. The JAA is similar to the Congressional Accountability Actwhich extended these protections to Congress and its staff in 1995.

The JAA — which will be reintroduced in Congress this month by Rep. Johnson — is commonsense legislation that would align the federal judiciary with not just the rest of the federal government but with private sector workplaces as well. It would standardize the internal dispute resolution mechanisms (currently the only mode of redress for harassment) throughout the judiciary. It would revise the judicial complaint process so investigations against judges can continue even when a judge resigns, retires or passes away. Crucially, it would extend whistleblower retaliation protections to clerks who report misconduct, thereby encouraging more robust reporting.

And it would require the federal judiciary to finally collect and report data — to the public and to Congress. Quantifying the scope of these problems is the first step toward crafting effective solutions. The judiciary’s unnecessarily secretive and insular resistance to transparency is a red flag and must be remedied.

There has never been a better time to enact the JAA, as the judiciary continues to claim to “self-police,” yet scandal after scandal has shown the judicial branch cannot get its own house in order. The judiciary has repeatedly signaled a lack of concern for the well-being of employees, routinely claiming it has “robust reporting mechanisms.” Yet these mechanisms have failed to enact meaningful internal policies in the more than six years since notorious harasser Judge Alex Kozinski stepped down from the same circuit as Judge Kindred.

In the face of clear, repeated evidence of unaccountable judges committing egregious misconduct, Congress has the power and the duty to fix it and ensure judicial employees using their voices and bravely sharing their experiences do not do so in vain. Democrats and Republicans can unite behind this commonsense, nonpartisan legislation, as historically, judicial accountability has not been a partisan issue. Both Democratic and Republican judicial appointees harass their clerks, just as liberal and conservative clerks are mistreated by their powerful bosses, all without legal recourse.

Judges are uniquely unaccountable and immune from scrutiny. Simply put: There is no substitute for legislative action on this issue. Congress must step in and extend legal protections to the over 30,000 employees in our federal judiciary. These employees deserve safe and respectful workplaces, free from discrimination and harassment, and yet that’s not a commitment the judiciary can currently make in good faith to thousands of recent graduates embarking on federal clerkships this month.

It is the height of injustice that judiciary employees who support the daily functioning of our courts lack basic workplace protections. These protections are already provided to congressional and executive branch staff. Why should we continue to exempt our third branch of government?

Hank Johnson

Rep. Hank Johnson is a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Courts. He has represented Georgia’s Fourth District since 2007.

Aliza Shatzman

Aliza Shatzman is president and founder of the Legal Accountability Project. She is an attorney and advocate based in Washington, D.C. who writes and speaks about judicial accountability, clerkships, and diversity in the courts.

Politics

Trump plays Texas hold ’em with Senate endorsement

Published

4 hours ago

March 27, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

As the MAGA faithful gather for another day of CPAC in Grapevine, Texas, they are openly celebrating what they believe is tantamount to a major midterms victory: keeping President Donald Trump from endorsing John Cornyn ahead of May’s GOP Senate primary runoff.

MAGA world is taking a victory lap — and fresh comfort — in the receipts: A lack of significant spending and polling so far by not only Cornyn’s campaign, but also the NRSC and One Nation, the Senate Leadership Fund-aligned nonprofit. It amounts to a pattern the MAGA cohort reads as Washington making peace with a matchup between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, their anointed candidate, and Texas Democratic state Rep. James Talarico.

“The grassroots stood in the breach and said a resounding ‘NO’ to Cornyn,” Steve Bannon, who has framed Paxton’s bid for the nomination as a battle for MAGA’s soul, told Blue Light News. “Polling and spending indicates that the Republican DC establishment reluctantly concurs. This could be the victory that empowers MAGA through the midterms.”

Paxton, though, hasn’t rested his case. He traveled to Mar-a-Lago last Friday for a Palm Beach County GOP dinner, and was spotted speaking to Trump himself, according to three sources familiar.

Trump and Paxton were on the patio, one source added, with another saying the two discussed the runoff. “It was a positive meeting,” said yet another person. A Paxton spokesperson declined to comment on the meeting.

It’s the latest sign of a fierce and feverish effort to keep Trump from endorsing Cornyn.

Even when all signs pointed to a Cornyn endorsement following the longtime senator’s showing in the primary, MAGA faithful kept pressing for Paxton. Now they’re optimistic their guy can come out on top — and they’re still taking shots at Cornyn every chance they get.

“The Cornyn endorsement looks dead, but it’s Trump, so it’s never certain,” a person close to the White House said. “Cornyn sealed his fate by carrying Mitch [McConnell]’s water on that ridiculous gun grabbing bill. No one thought he would be dumb enough to run for reelection after that but here we are.”

Now, Trump may not give an endorsement at all. Or if he does, he may endorse Paxton after the SAVE Act debate in the Senate is over, three sources tell Blue Light News.

“Nothing is dead,” said a source familiar with the president’s thinking. “It’s all just stasis at the moment.”

“It’s looking like he may not endorse at all,” another White House official said. “But it doesn’t seem like he has made up his mind.”

But the endorsement equation in Texas amid the SAVE Act saga is still very much vexing Trump, according to five Republicans in and around the White House. The president, who will not be in attendance at this year’s CPAC, is “being patient” and “trying to exact” a policy win, another person said.

“Trump isn’t going to endorse against Cornyn while the Save America Act is still being debated,” one White House ally said. “So for now I think he stays out, but if Thune files cloture and Paxton continues to lead in every poll then I could see him endorsing Paxton. No question Paxton wins if Trump stays out though.”

Every Republican who spoke to Blue Light News cautioned that Trump could change his mind at any moment. It’s still early for the runoff, they said, with Election Day still nearly two months away. But the deadline for a candidate to drop off the ballot passed last week.

One person familiar told Blue Light News that the Senate Leadership Fund and NRSC aren’t spending in order to conserve resources. “Not cause they are throwing in the towel,” this person said.

The campaign will be spending soon, a Cornyn spokesperson said. “Ken Paxton said he needed $20M to win this primary and he’s barely raised a quarter of that,” said Cornyn campaign senior adviser Matt Mackowiak. “His professional failures and indefensible personal conduct make GOP donors and Texas primary voters deeply uncomfortable.” He added: “We have a plan to win this race and we are executing it. Ken Paxton is busy whining and hiding.”

Chris LaCivita, one of Trump’s top campaign hands who works as a senior adviser for the pro-Cornyn super PAC Texans for a Conservative Majority, said the runoff boils down to a resource equation. “The question remains the same,” LaCivita said. “Does the GOP want to spend $150-200 million holding what should be a safe seat and giving up other opportunities to gain advantage?”

Joanna Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the NRSC, said it’s “been very clear that the fight to protect President Trump’s Senate Majority should not be fought in Texas, and John Cornyn is the only candidate who ensures that does not happen.”

When it comes to money, Republicans are planning for MAGA Inc. to be “responsible for resources needed in a general election if it’s Ken Paxton,” according to two GOP operatives briefed on strategy (one cautioned that “planning is probably more hoping.”). A MAGA Inc. spokesperson declined to comment.

On the sidelines of CPAC, where bedazzled and sequined conservatives gathered for the base’s annual pep rally, the overwhelming feeling was that most Texas GOP primary voters had already made up their minds — and a Trump endorsement in either direction wouldn’t make much of a difference. Some attendees said they viewed Trump’s silence as a nudge toward Paxton.

“Texans — we’re done,” said Gregorio Heise, a Paxton supporter and Republican running for Congress in Rep. Jasmine Crockett’s Dallas district. “It’s already showing, even in the polling. Cornyn doesn’t do what Texans want, and [Paxton] does.”

On Friday night at CPAC, attendees will hear from Paxton, who’s headlining the conference’s Ronald Reagan dinner. Cornyn isn’t planning to attend.

“It’s an opportunity to be able to, you know, share your vision and basically sell yourself to the crowd, to the Texas crowd,” CPAC host and organizer Mercedes Schlapp told Blue Light News. “So Ken Paxton agreed to come, and he has a very high CPAC rating. And you know, we’ve invited Cornyn, and so we are still open. The invitation is still open for John Cornyn to come.”

Like this content? Consider signing up for Blue Light News’s Playbook newsletter.