Connect with us

Politics

Judges shouldn’t be above the laws they interpret

Published

on

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.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Bannon blasts Trump campaign aides in Texas Senate showdown

Published

on

DALLAS — When President Donald Trump pops up in Texas for an event at the Port of Corpus Christi on Friday, he’s not expected to put his finger on the scale in the closely watched Republican Senate primary between incumbent John Cornyn, state Attorney General Ken Paxton and Rep. Wesley Hunt — all of whom will be in attendance.

But Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign team’s involvement with Cornyn’s reelect is opening a fresh wound for some pro-Paxton MAGA types.

Tony Fabrizio, Trump’s top pollster, is working for Cornyn’s campaign, and Chris LaCivita, one of Trump’s top campaign hands, works as a senior adviser for the pro-Cornyn super PAC Texans for a Conservative Majority. Steve Bannon, the longtime MAGA torchbearer, has taken issue with Fabrizio and LaCivita’s involvement.

“My belief is the Trump team should have stayed out of this race, absolutely,” Bannon told Blue Light News from a rented ranch in North Texas, where he’s been broadcasting his “War Room” show.

Asked about Bannon’s criticism of their involvement with Cornyn’s reelection efforts, Fabrizio did not respond — but LaCivita texted Blue Light News a fiery reply: “Associating with Senator Cornyn is better than being a lacky [sic] for Epstein,” he said, an apparent reference to Bannon’s newly surfaced ties to the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The Justice Department’s release of documents in January revealed extensive exchanges that Epstein had with Bannon as he mounted a political influence campaign across Europe. Bannon has said little publicly about his relationship with Epstein, but he did previously call for an independent investigation into the files. Bannon didn’t respond to a request for comment on LaCivita’s response.

The intraparty conflict also foreshadows what’s likely to be an increasing number of such battles for the future of the Republican Party. Bannon, who’s all in for Paxton, is portraying the expected runoff between Paxton and Cornyn as nothing less than the battle for the soul of MAGA.

“The Paxton situation is critical, because he has been the MAGA guy since Day One,” Bannon told Playbook. Paxton, Bannon said, is more than just a candidate in a contested GOP primary. “He is a symbol of the heart of the grassroots MAGA movement.”

A White House official told Blue Light News “the president is neutral until he’s not,” and added that “John Cornyn votes with the President.”

LaCivita declined to share the backstory of how he and Fabrizio ended up working with Cornyn.

But the White House doesn’t seem bothered. “We don’t regulate the business/political choices of private individuals — if they are a part of our world — in a race where the President is neutral,” the White House official said.

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

Continue Reading

Politics

Senator Slotkin on why Dems need their own ‘Project 2029’ | The Conversation

Published

on

Senator Slotkin on why Dems need their own ‘Project 2029’ | The Conversation

lead image

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump administration pauses some Medicaid funding to Minnesota

Published

on

WASHINGTON (AP) — Vice President JD Vance announced Wednesday that the Trump administration would “temporarily halt” some Medicaid funding to the state of Minnesota over fraud concernsas part of what he described as an aggressive crackdown on misuse of public funds.

Vance, who made the announcement with Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said the administration was taking the action “in order to ensure that the state of Minnesota takes its obligations seriously to be good stewards of the American people’s tax money.”

Oz, who referred to people committing fraud as “self-serving scoundrels,” said the federal government would hold off on paying $259.5 million to Minnesota in funding for Medicaid, the health care safety net for low-income Americans.

“This is not a problem with the people of Minnesota, it’s a problem with the leadership of Minnesota and other states who do not take Medicaid preservation seriously,” Oz said.

Wednesday’s move is part of a larger Trump administration effort to spotlight fraud around the country. That effort comes after allegations of fraud involving day care centers run by Somali residents in Minneapolis prompted a massive immigration crackdown in the Midwestern city, resulting in widespread protests. President Donald Trump, in his State of the Union address on Tuesday, announced Vance would spearhead a national “war on fraud.”

Trump also recently nominated Colin McDonald to serve as the first assistant attorney general in charge of a Justice Department division dedicated to rooting out fraud.

Minnesota pushes back

Oz said the administration was simultaneously notifying Minnesota’s Democratic Gov. Tim Walz as he was making the announcement publicly.

“We will give them the money, but we’re going to hold it and only release it after they propose and act on a comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem,” Oz said.

He said Walz would have 60 days to respond and advised health care providers and Medicaid beneficiaries who were concerned to contact Walz’s office.

Walz, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2024 running mate, said in a pair of social media posts that the administration’s move had nothing to do with fraud.

“This is a campaign of retribution. Trump is weaponizing the entirety of the federal government to punish blue states like Minnesota,” Walz said. “These cuts will be devastating for veterans, families with young kids, folks with disabilities, and working people across our state.”

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said in a statement that his team has secured over 300 Medicaid fraud convictions since he took office in 2019. And he noted that he called on the Legislature earlier Wednesday to give him more staff and new legal tools to combat Medicaid fraud.

“Courts have repeatedly found that their pattern of cutting first and asking questions later is illegal, and if the federal government is unlawfully withholding money meant for the 1.2 million low-income Minnesotans on Medicaid, we will see them in court,” Ellison said.

Oz said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services were also taking action to crack down on fraud in Medicare, the health care system relied upon by millions of older adults.

He said CMS for six months would block any new Medicare enrollments for suppliers of durable medical equipment, prosthetics, orthotics or other supplies used to treat chronic conditions or assist in injury recovery.

The Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found last year that Medicare improperly paid suppliers nearly $23 million for durable medical equipment from 2018 through 2024. But it found that most of that was before January 2020, when changes to the system were implemented.

Oz also announced a new crowdsourcing effort he said would help “crush fraud” by soliciting Americans’ tips and suggestions.

“All of us are smarter than any one of us,” he said.

In a news release accompanying the announcement, CMS said the funding being paused in Minnesota included some $244 million in unsupported or potentially fraudulent Medicaid claims and about $15 million in claims involving “individuals lacking a satisfactory immigration status.”

Immigrants who are not living in the U.S. legally, as well as some lawfully present immigrants, are not allowed to enroll in the Medicaid program that provides nearly-free coverage for health services.

CMS said in the release that if Minnesota fails to satisfy its requirements, it may defer up to $1 billion in federal funds to the state over the next year. CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency’s review of potential fraud cases would include sampling claims to see if they comply with federal requirements, and potentially requesting more information about specific claims.

Akeiisa Coleman, the senior program officer for Medicaid at the Commonwealth Fund, said CMS was taking a “highly unusual step” in deferring funding. She said if the state doesn’t have enough funds available, it may have to halt payments to providers, which could affect care.

Democratic-run states face cutoffs

The administration has threatened to cut off funding for various programs for some Democratic-run states over fraud concerns over the last few months.

One judge blocked those actions and required that payments flowing to Minnesota and four other states — California, Colorado, Illinois and New York — for a variety of social service programs. The government had said that there was “reason to believe” that those states were granting benefits to people in the country illegally. It did not initially explain where that information came from, but a government lawyer told the judge it was largely in reaction to news reports about possible fraud.

Another judge said she would not let it cut off funding for administrative costs for 22 states that have refused to hand over information about applicants and recipients of food aid through the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program.

The latest action was prompted in part by a series of fraud cases, including a nonprofit called Feeding Our Future accused of stealing pandemic aid meant for school meals. Prosecutors have put the losses from that case at $300 million.

Since then, Trump has targeted the Somali diaspora in Minnesota with immigration enforcement actions and has made a series of disparaging comments about the community. During his State of the Union address on Tuesday, Trump said “pirates” have “ransacked Minnesota.”

Federal agencies have also been enlisted to assist in targeting fraud in Minnesota.

Last December, the U.S. Treasury Department issued an order requiring money wire services that people use to send money to Somalia to submit additional verification to the Treasury.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services told Minnesota in January that it intended to freeze parts of payments for some Medicaid programs that were deemed high-risk. The state said that those cuts would add up to more than $2 billion annually if they lasted and made an administrative appeal.

___

Associated Press writers Geoff Mulvihill in Philadelphia, Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis and Fatima Hussein in Washington contributed to this report.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending