Federal Judge Sues Judicial Conference Over Forced Mental Health Evaluation
U.S. District Judge John Adams claims the committee and council violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment by ordering him to submit to a mental health evaluation last month.
September 14, 2017 at 06:24 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge sued the federal judiciary's policymaking body Thursday, alleging its panel on disabilities violated his Fifth Amendment rights by ordering him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.
U.S. District Judge John Adams of Northern District of Ohio filed the lawsuit in federal court in Washington, D.C., against the Judicial Conference of the United States' Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability and its chair, Judge Anthony Scirica of the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Sixth Circuit's Judicial Council and its chief, Judge R. Guy Cole Jr., are also defendants. Adams claims the committee and council violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment by ordering him to submit to a mental health evaluation last month.
The committee, which reviews orders from circuit judicial councils, upheld the Sixth Circuit Judicial Council's finding that Adams engaged in misconduct by refusing to undergo a mental health examination as part of an investigation into his behavior after he threatened to hold a magistrate judge in contempt for missing a deadline. Adams also claims the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act, the law under which the Judicial Council derives its authority to issue such an order, is unconstitutionally vague.
“Plaintiff has an obvious liberty interest in the outcome of any misconduct or disability proceeding against him,” the complaint said. “He also has an obvious liberty interest in not being subjected to an involuntary psychiatric examination and a further liberty interest in not being stigmatized as having committed misconduct and having his mental health questioned, as well as having his status as an Article III judge altered by ordering him to undergo a compelled psychiatric evaluation and subjecting him to the continuing oversight of the [special investigative committee].”
The circuit executive for the Sixth Circuit, Clarence Maddox, declined to comment on the lawsuit. A request for comment from the Judicial Conference was not immediately returned. Adams is represented by Judicial Watch Inc., a D.C.-based conservative watchdog organization.
The lawsuit is the latest in a controversial period for Adams at the courthouse in Akron, Ohio. He's been under investigation by the court's disciplinary body since 2013 after he issued a show cause order to a magistrate judge who missed a deadline to issue a decision in a Social Security appeal. The judge has also been involved in other controversies, such as being involuntarily removed from a criminal case over which he presided because the defendant said he did illegal drugs with Adams' brother and nephew, according to reporting from Cleveland.com.
In February 2013, four other judges filed a complaint against Adams, claiming the show cause order constituted “an extreme, unwarranted and unjustified abuse of judicial discretion.” Sixth Circuit Judge Danny Boggs appointed a special investigative committee to handle the complaint.
The investigative committee asked Adams to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, and the judge declined. He said he would only agree if he had input on who the mental health professionals were, among other conditions. He also underwent two examinations on his own, with two different psychiatrists of his own choosing, the complaint said. The committee excluded those psychiatrists' testimony during a hearing.
Eventually, in 2016, the Judicial Council issued an order barring Adams from taking on new cases for two years, and allowed the investigative committee to monitor his behavior for two years. The order also indicated that should Adams continue to refuse a mental health evaluation, it would request he retire voluntarily. In August this year, the Judicial Conference panel upheld that order, in a matter of first impression, though it vacated the two-year ban on new cases for Adams.
In addition to Fifth Amendment claims, Adams claims that a compelled psychiatric exam is equivalent to a search and seizure, and therefore would also violate his Fourth Amendment rights. He also claims the orders, “constitute an attempt to remove [him] from office” in violation of the Constitution's separation of powers principle, among other charges.
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 AllBiden Squeezes in U.S. District Court Nominee for New York Before Term Ends
'Rapidly Closing Window': Progressive Groups Urge Senate Votes on Biden's Judicial Nominees
5 minute readWhere May Vacancies for Trump Arise? These GOP-Appointed Circuit Judges Qualify for Senior Status
At Supreme Court These Days, the Liberal Justices Are 'Textualists' Too
Trending Stories
- 1Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency Practices Stand to Gain from Trump Election
- 2Judge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
- 3Fighting Injustice: Son Secures Father's Honorable Discharge From U.S. Air Force
- 4'A Giant in the Legal Community': a Fulton County Judge Has Died
- 5Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?
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