Ethics Complaints Against Kavanaugh Forwarded to SCOTUS: Report
On Saturday, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a statement that seemed to foreclose any action by the D.C. Circuit on misconduct complaints. The Washington Post said Henderson forwarded complaints to the Supreme Court, which could refer them to another circuit.
October 06, 2018 at 02:01 PM
4 minute read
Updated 3 p.m.
Channels for challenging U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's judicial ethics are closing as his confirmation draws near.
On Saturday, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a statement that seemed to foreclose any action by the D.C. Circuit on misconduct complaints that have been filed with the court concerning Kavanaugh's statements during his confirmation hearings.
Henderson did not state how many complaints have been filed, but indicated they were outside the scope of any sanctions the circuit court could impose. “The complaints do not pertain to any conduct in which Judge Kavanaugh engaged as a judge,” Henderson stated. “The complaints seek investigations only of the public statements he has made as a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The Washington Post reported Saturday that Henderson forwarded more than a dozen complaints filed with the D.C. Circuit to the Supreme Court, which could lead to referring them to another circuit court.
Statements about judicial misconduct usually are made by the chief judge, but the D.C. Circuit's chief judge, Merrick Garland, apparently recused himself, leaving it to Henderson, the most senior judge in the circuit. A Democratic activist reportedly filed ethics complaints against Kavanaugh at the D.C. Circuit.
Filing complaints directly with the Supreme Court itself is an unlikely avenue, especially since Kavanaugh's statements were made before joining the high court. The judicial code of conduct that lower federal court judges must adhere to does not apply to Supreme Court justices.
“That reflects a fundamental difference between the Supreme Court and the other federal courts,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. stated in his 2011 annual report, his most recent exposition on Supreme Court ethics. Roberts explained that the Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, but it empowered Congress to create the lower federal courts, so Congress can manage the lower courts but not the Supreme Court.
But Roberts went on to say that the justices “do in fact consult the Code of Conduct in assessing their ethical obligations,” as well as other sources for guidance on ethical issues. “For that reason, the court has had no reason to adopt the Code of Conduct as its definitive source of ethical guidance. But as a practical matter, the code remains the starting point and a key source of guidance for the Justices as well as their lower court colleagues.”
Roberts did not spell out any formal procedure for handling complaints about the conduct of justices.
A bipartisan bill that passed out of the House Judiciary Committee in September would compel the Supreme Court to develop its own ethics code, among other changes.
Gabe Roth, executive director of Fix the Court, which has advocated for a Supreme Court ethics code, said Saturday he hopes the bill becomes law, “and the ongoing confusion over judges and justices' ethical obligations becomes a relic.”
Read more:
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 AllTrump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
Auditor Finds 'Significant Deficiency' in FTC Accounting to Tune of $7M
4 minute readTexas Court Invalidates SEC’s Dealer Rule, Siding with Crypto Advocates
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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