Capitol Hill Roiled by Kavanaugh Allegations, but Judges Are Silent
The federal rules governing complaints against judges don't apply to U.S. Supreme Court justices, a panel said recently in dismissing cases confronting Brett Kavanaugh's conduct.
September 17, 2019 at 04:39 PM
4 minute read
As a new sexual misconduct claim involving U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh reverberated around Capitol Hill, the justice and earlier complaints against him that were aired during his confirmation hearing last year were not discussed Tuesday at the formal meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
Chief Judge Merrick Garland of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who briefed the media following the Judicial Conference's meeting, said there had been no discussion about Kavanaugh and the procedures in place for misconduct claims against federal appeals judges who are later elevated to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh was confirmed to the high court from the D.C. Circuit.
Last month, the Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability dismissed what were essentially appeals of rulings that said the federal courts were powerless to address misconduct complaints against Kavanaugh because he was now a Supreme Court justice. A panel said the rules governing the conduct of federal judges "unequivocally preclude review" of the merits of complaints against a judge "who has resigned his or her judicial office and thereafter been confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court."
The misconduct complaints against Kavanaugh stemmed from his angry diatribe at his confirmation hearing. He denied claims that, as a Maryland high school student, he pinned a teenage girl to a bed and sexually assaulted her at a house party. Kavanaugh attacked Democrats and the Clintons for having participated in a "revenge" conspiracy in an effort to derail his nomination to the Supreme Court. He later walked back what he described as "emotional" testimony. "I know that my tone was sharp, and I said a few things I should not have said," Kavanaugh said.
Tuesday's Judicial Conference meeting came amid renewed attention on Kavanaugh's conduct as a college student. Two New York Times reporters said they uncovered a new claim of sexual misconduct in which Kavanaugh "pushed his penis into the hand of a female student" during a "drunken dorm party." That student, according to the reporters, has no memory of the alleged incident. Kavanaugh, according to a Times excerpt of the book, did not speak with the two reporters because they could not agree to the terms of an interview.
The authors of the new book, "The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation," also reported the FBI did not interview witnesses who purportedly could have corroborated another accuser, Deborah Ramirez, who was a Yale classmate of Kavanaugh's. Ramirez also alleged Kavanaugh thrust his penis in her face during a party. Kavanaugh has denied the claim. The new reporting, which the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday called "scurrilous," spurred calls for the justice's impeachment from Democratic presidential candidates.
The Judicial Conference's Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability did not forward any of the Kavanaugh ethics cases to the full Judicial Conference, which comprises the chief judges of the 13 federal appellate courts and Court of International Trade, a Judicial Conference spokesman confirmed Tuesday.
The Judicial Conference, which is the federal courts' policymaking arm, announced a new initiative Tuesday addressing workplace conduct in the judiciary. The conference approved a new model employment dispute resolution plan that is designed to simplify and expand options for addressing workplace misconduct.
The plan incorporates many of the recommendations made by the judiciary's workplace conduct working group, which was set up partly in response to sexual misconduct allegations by former Judge Alex Kozinski. The judge retired in 2017 from the Ninth Circuit in the face of those complaints.
"We're not finished" with efforts to address that issue within the judiciary workplace, said Garland, adding that it requires "continued vigilance. We don't plan on letting up on it."
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 Picks Personal Criminal Defense Lawyers for Solicitor General, Deputy Attorney General
'Health Care Behemoth'?: DOJ Seeks Injunction Blocking $3.3B UnitedHealth Merger Proposal
3 minute readFreshfields Hires DOJ Official, Squire Taps Paul Hastings Atty for US Antitrust Head
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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