New Dismissal of Kavanaugh Ethics Claims Divides 10th Circuit Panel
"I am left to conclude that the entire council should be disqualified from participating in consideration of the current petitions for review," Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote in her dissent.
March 15, 2019 at 02:24 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
The Tenth Circuit Judicial Council on Friday denied 20 appeals of its earlier dismissal of misconduct complaints against now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh stemming from his nomination and confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judicial council voted 6-1 to reaffirm its decision that an “intervening event”—Kavanaugh's elevation to the Supreme Court—deprived it of jurisdiction to review 83 ethics complaints filed before and after Kavanaugh's confirmation in October. Supreme Court justices are not governed by the conduct rules that govern federal trial and appeals judges.
“As explained extensively in the underlying order, a Supreme Court justice is not a covered judge,” the majority, including Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich, said in its order Friday. “The lack of jurisdiction over Justice Kavanaugh precludes an investigative and fact-finding process, even over conduct allegedly committed while Justice Kavanaugh was a covered judge.”
Judge Mary Beck Briscoe dissented, saying it was improper of the council to sit in review of its own decision.
“I am left to conclude that the entire council should be disqualified from participating in consideration of the current petitions for review,” Briscoe wrote. “And, in turn, I conclude that the petitions for review should be considered by a different body, specifically the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability.”
Briscoe added in a footnote: “In light of my dissent, petitioners can presumably petition the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability for review of the Council's order.”
Judge Carlos Lucero recused, writing that he was disqualified from reviewing the “petitions for review” for the reasons stated in Briscoe's dissent. “I would reassign the petitions to the Chief Justice of the United States for further referral to the Judicial Council of another Circuit pursuant to Rule 26 for independent consideration of the appeals or for other disposition as he may determine,” he wrote.
Reacting to the council's denial of the appeals, New York attorney Jeremy Bates, who filed one of the appeals, said, “I intend to petition the Judicial Conference for review of this order.”
The appeals, known formally as petitions for review, generally raised four issues, including: the council did not have authority to consider the complaints in the first instance; the council should disqualify itself from considering the appeals; the council had the authority in the first instance to rule on the merits, because Kavanaugh at the time was a circuit judge, not a Supreme Court justice; the allegations against Kavanaugh “are not moot and remedial action remains possible.”
The council cited the federal rules and the practice of appellate courts in reviewing their own decisions as support for the procedures used to review the original complaints and for its subsequent denial of the appeals. “The idea that judges review their own decisions is not novel,” the majority wrote.
Besides Tymkovich, Briscoe and Lucero, other members of the council included: Circuit Judge Paul Kelly Jr. and district judges Philip Brimmer of Colorado, Clark Waddoups of Utah, Scott Skavdahl of Wyoming and John Dowdell of Oklahoma.
The Tenth Circuit's order is posted here:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudge Cannon Says She Has No Relationship With Trump and Won't Step Down From Attempted Assassination Case
State, Federal Courts in North Carolina Announce Reopening Dates Following Hurricane Helene
Many Judges Earn Less Than Lawyers: Texas Judiciary Asks for 30% Raise
5 minute readConflict or Earned? Judge in Trump Cases Floated as Potential AG Pick
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250