Judges, Clerks Warned to Avoid Partisan Training Programs
The Judicial Conference of the United States' Committee on Codes of Conduct published an advisory opinion after senators raised concerns about a Heritage Foundation program catered to future clerks.
March 06, 2019 at 02:56 PM
4 minute read
The ethics committee for the federal judiciary is warning judges to carefully consider their participation in events by groups that are “engaged in public policy debates.”
The Judicial Conference of the United States' Committee on Codes of Conduct has published an advisory opinion on federal judges and their employees, including current and future law clerks, participating in programs and events sponsored by outside organizations.
Under the judiciary's ethics codes, federal judges and their clerks have long steered clear from publicly commenting or participating in events that endorse political viewpoints. But the opinion urges judges to take heed of even more considerations before they agree to attend an event.
“Organizations that were once clearly engaged in efforts to educate judges and lawyers have become increasingly involved in contentious public policy debates,” the opinion said. “Gone are the days when it was possible for a judge to identify the sponsoring organization and know that the judge was within a bright-line 'safe zone' for participation.”
The opinion advises judges and their employees to consider, among other things, the sponsoring organization's identity, its stated mission, its sources of funding, whether it's involved in any litigation at the state or federal level, or involved in lobbying and outreach efforts.
It also specifically urges judges to consider whether the sponsoring organization for an event is “generally viewed by the public as having adopted a consistent political or ideological point of view equivalent to the type of partisanship often found in political organizations.”
The committee cautions judges who are weighing participation in a “law-related activity” that might have “political overtones” to consider whether the activity violates the “express or implied values” of the canons of judicial conduct.
“Where participation would undermine public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary, would give rise to an appearance of engaging in political activity and of undue influence on the judge, or would otherwise give the appearance of impropriety, the committee has advised against attending a seminar or conference,” the opinion read.
The opinion, dated February 2019, came after a handful of Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee wrote to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts last year about a controversial “training academy” program under the Heritage Foundation.
The Heritage Foundation caught heat after The New York Times reported the conservative organization had started a “training academy” for recent law school graduates with federal clerkships lined up. The program, funded by unnamed donors, would have required those future law clerks to keep silent about the program, and to promise they would not use the training “for any purpose contrary to the mission or interest of The Heritage Foundation.” The Heritage Foundation later suspended the program, before rebooting a modified version of it.
The committee's opinion did not directly identify the Heritage program, but it said the conference received “multiple inquiries” about the topic of judges and their employees participating in events and educational seminars sponsored by outside groups. The committee also specified that judges may “impose limits on the pre-employment conduct of their future law clerks” to prohibit activity that might violate their code of conduct.
The lawmakers who wrote to the administrative office praised the opinion as a “breakthrough.” The senators who penned letters include Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Dianne Feinstein of California, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Dick Durbin of Illinois, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.
Read the opinion:
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 AllDemocratic State AGs Revel in Role as Last Line of Defense Against Trump Agenda
6 minute readTrump's SEC Overhaul: What It Means for Big Law Capital Markets, Crypto Work
Trump'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 readTrending Stories
- 1Bankruptcy Judge to Step Down in 2025
- 2Justices Seek Solicitor General's Views on Music Industry's Copyright Case Against ISP
- 3Judge to hear arguments on whether Google's advertising tech constitutes a monopoly
- 4'Big Law Had Become Too Woke': Why Bill Barr Moved On
- 5Manhattan U.S. Attorney Damian Williams Announces Resignation from Office
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