Judges often quit to avoid misconduct investigations. A new bill in Congress would stop that.
Congressman Hank Johnson, a Georgia Democrat who introduced the bill, said judges and courts shouldn't "sweep bad behavior under the rug." Nine other Democrats, including high-profile New York representative Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are cosponsoring the bill.
The two-page proposal would add language to federal laws around judicial complaints, saying investigations should occur "without regard to the resignation, retirement or death of the judge whose conduct is the subject of the complaint."
Aliza Shatzman founded the Legal Accountability Project after experiencing what she described as harassment and retaliation while working for a judge, said she worked with Johnson's office on the bill. She said people in the federal judiciary have told her that their hands are tied once a judge leaves.
"This would untie those hands," she said. "Theoretically, it's something they should support."
She hopes Republicans will support the bill because judicial misconduct doesn't have a political party. "Both Democratic and Republican appointees mistreat their clerks," she said.
The bill faces uncertain prospects if it doesn't get GOP support. House Republicans, including the judiciary committee, have been focused on passing legislation to enable President Donald Trump to crack down on immigrants.
Richard Painter, a government-ethics expert formerly affiliated with one of the groups backing the bill, said it's possible that the judiciary would oppose the measure because judges see themselves as capable of policing their own conduct.
"You can't just say separation of powers means there's no checks and balances," he said. "I don't buy those arguments, but you might hear those arguments."
Johnson's office said judges accused of sexual harassment have resigned, including Jos Antonio Fust in 2016 and Alex Kozinski in 2017, before the disciplinary process could run its course. More recently, a federal judge in Alaska, Joshua Kindred, resigned after an investigation found that he made inappropriate sexual comments to his staff and began a sexual relationship with one of his clerks after she became a prosecutor.
Kozinski has said it was "never my intent" to make his clerks uncomfortable. Business Insider was unable to contact Fust.
Historically, judges and their clerks have had close relationships; a 1992 law review article described how one judge's clerks would spend the night at his house and babysit his grandchildren. There is now much more scrutiny on such relationships and the potential for overwork and exploitation of clerks and staff.
Sometimes, the allegations rise to the level of official complaints, and courts take action. Judge Pauline Newman, a member of a federal appeals court that hears high-stakes intellectual property disputes, is fighting for her job after some employees expressed concern about her mental health. Several other lawyers and judges have said Newman remains sharp, and accused other judges of overreacting.
Last year, the legal reporter David Lat reported that a Trump-appointed judge in Florida who was criticized over decisions she made in one of his criminal cases lost two clerks over heavy workloads and what one clerk told friends was "mean" conduct. And Shatzman wrote on the website Above The Law that a federal judge in Minnesota left the bench after being accused of mistreating and retaliating against employees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Less than 20% of troops deployed to L.A. are on the ground. A former commander calls that ‘awful'
Less than 20% of the nearly 5,000 National Guard and Marine troops deployed to Los Angeles were actually on the ground in the city as of earlier this week, according to text messages by a state official with direct knowledge of staffing. That level is so low a former National Guard commander called it 'awful' in an interview with the Chronicle and questioned whether the $134 million deployment is justified. Of the 4,946 National Guard members and Marines deployed by President Donald Trump to Los Angeles in response to protests of immigration raids, just 978 were in the city, the state official with firsthand knowledge of National Guard staffing levels wrote Wednesday in the text messages obtained by the Chronicle. 'Federalized National Guard and USMC forces are grossly underutilized,' the state official wrote to another state official. 'That's at 19.77% utilization rate. Insane.' The officials were discussing how the deployment was pulling soldiers away from the National Guard's wildfire mitigation work. The Chronicle is not naming the officials in accordance with its policy on anonymous sources. The former National Guard commander, Brig. Gen. Peter Cross, told the Chronicle that the less than 20% rate is consistent with what he's heard in his role as president of the National Guard Association of California. Even accounting for soldiers working in shifts, he said, soldiers should be working at a rate much closer to 100%. 'It's awful. … So far as I understand, we're not even approaching, under that shifting model, full utilization of the soldiers,' he said. 'That's extremely concerning to me as a former military commander." Democrats have been saying for weeks that the deployment is a waste of money. 'You really have to use the National Guard as a last resort,' said Cross, a retired military police officer who was deployed to the 1992 Los Angeles riots and has served in Iraq and Afghanistan. 'This is literally the most expensive option we as a society, as a country, can utilize.' Many of the troops deployed in Southern California in response to the protests are stationed at the Joint Forces Training Base in Los Alamitos, where the military has constructed massive tents to house them. The base is about 30 miles from downtown Los Angeles in Orange County. It typically is used for the National Guard and Army Reserves. Trump began federalizing National Guard troops, who are normally under governors' control, nearly two weeks ago in response to protests over aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles. Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass opposed the deployment, saying that local and state police were sufficiently staffed to handle the protests. Trump argued that the protests had gotten out of hand. 'If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can't do their jobs, which everyone knows they can't, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!' the president wrote in a post on his social media website on Saturday, June 7. Shortly after the post, Trump issued an executive order federalizing 2,000 members of the National Guard for 60 days to respond to protests. The order does not specify that the troops be deployed in California or Los Angeles. Trump has since called up additional National Guard members and has also deployed 700 Marines to respond. The protests in Los Angeles, which grew after Trump deployed the troops, have since calmed significantly. Earlier this week, Bass lifted a curfew she had imposed last week for the area of downtown that has seen the most protests. Newsom has sued to regain control of the National Guard troops. He argues that Trump's federalizing of the troops is illegal and amounts to a dangerous overreach by the president. On Thursday, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Trump could retain control of the Guard troops while legal challenges proceed in lower courts. 'This brazen abuse of power by a sitting President inflamed a combustible situation putting our people, our officers, and the National Guard at risk,' Newsom said in a speech several days after Trump deployed the troops. 'When Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard, he made that order apply to every state in this nation. … California may be first — but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next.' Most of the 300 National Guard members who had been working on a vegetation management team called Joint Task Force Rattlesnake have been taken off the wildfire prevention work as part of the Los Angeles deployment, according to Newsom's office. Newsom has also criticized the deployment for moving National Guard troops who had been doing drug interdiction work at the border. 'You just pulled National Guard I placed at the border who were stopping fentanyl smuggling,' Newsom wrote on social media in response to a post from a Trump administration official. 'Now they're twiddling their thumbs in LA.' Lt. Carl Trujillo, a spokesperson for the California Military Department, referred all questions about the deployment to U.S. Army North Public Affairs. He said that when National Guard troops were deployed to assist with wildfire recovery in Los Angeles earlier this year, they were stationed at the Rose Bowl and a base in Malibu, not the training base in Los Alamitos. He said the base is not typically used to station large numbers of troops for extended periods of time because it is relatively small. U.S. Army North Public Affairs declined to respond to questions about staffing levels and whether it was typical that less than 20% of the deployed troops would be used in Los Angeles on any given day, citing security concerns. The office said that the National Guard troops are being housed at Los Alamitos, while the Marines are located at Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, also in Orange County. Photos posted online by the military show the tents at the base in Los Alamitos, with some housing rows upon rows of cots and folding tables set up like a cafeteria. Images taken by a Chronicle photographer from a helicopter that flew near the base show multiple massive tents and other temporary structures that have been erected on the base. Other photos obtained by the Chronicle from inside the base also show soldiers in fatigues walking around the area as well as construction projects with cranes and wooden pallets. A nearby resident, who declined to give his name, said he has a good view of the base from his backyard. He said it's common for troops to stage there for training. He said troops had camped in smaller tents when they arrived, but now are staying in a massive tent that he estimated is longer than a football field but about the same width. The resident described the National Guard troops as 'wonderful neighbors' even if they make noise early in the morning. Reached by phone Thursday afternoon, he said he could hear troops marching down the middle of a road near his home. Cross said it's not surprising that National Guard soldiers would be stationed at the base in Los Alamitos and that it's normal protocol to build massive tents to house soldiers. But he noted that the activity at the base underscores why deploying the Guard is also the most expensive option available in a situation like this. It also takes a personal toll on the soldiers who are deployed, who must leave their families, their jobs and their educational pursuits behind. Typically the Guard should be deployed only when all local law enforcement options are exhausted. That doesn't seem to be the case here, he said. 'This melodramatic talk about people worried about the military shooting someone or being more violent than is necessary — I'm just not worried about that because of the training we have,' he said. 'I'm just skeptical whether we were needed.' In his current role with the California National Guard, Cross oversees the Youth and Community Program, which runs educational programs for struggling teens. The programs have continued to function, he said, even as many of the soldiers who work on them have been deployed. But if the deployment is still happening in a few weeks when the new school session starts, he's worried he'll have to turn more troubled teens away. 'When you're called up, you're pulled up from your employer, from your life,' Cross said. 'You want it to have value, you want it to have purpose, and if you're sitting in your armory, not tasked, that will erode your morale.'
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Republican Party has nearly five times more cash on hand than the Democrats
The Republican National Committee has almost five times the cash on hand as its Democratic counterpart, as Democrats seek to regain their footing following a disappointing 2024 cycle. The RNC reported having $72 million on hand at the end of May, compared to just $15 million for the DNC, according to campaign filings out Friday. While the RNC has for months held a cash advantage over the Democratic National Committee, the $57 million gap is the widest disparity between the two parties since at least July 2020, according to California Target Book's Rob Pyers. It's still early, but the GOP's cash edge could give the party an early boost as it looks to build out campaign infrastructure ahead of next year's midterms. "The single most important thing the DNC can and should be doing right now is raising money," Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod told CNBC. The filings come as the DNC has faced internal tension since President Donald Trump's return to the White House. Earlier this month, leaders of two large labor unions each declined their nominations to continue serving on the committee, dealing a blow to Chair Ken Martin. Martin has also overseen internal divisions over ex-DNC Vice Chair David Hogg's bid to challenge sitting Democratic incumbents. Hogg stepped down from his role earlier this month amid backlash. Some Democrats say that the fundraising gap underscores deeper concerns within the party. "The base of the party and donors alike do not have confidence in the direction of the party," said Cooper Teboe, a Democratic strategist in Silicon Valley. Teboe said that the party has not presented "a positive, inspiring vision." The DNC, however, points to a surge in grassroots support. The party says it raised roughly $40 million in individual donations since Martin became chair in February, a record for that four-month period. The contributions go to a range of areas, according to the DNC, including "building up critical infrastructure from tech to organizing to in-state investments for critical, target races." "This is only the start, but it's a record-setting start that allows Democrats to meaningfully invest in every part of the country," Martin said in a statement. The DNC's war chest is roughly double what it held during the same period in 2017, suggesting there is time for them to catch up. "The goals Chair Martin has set out — investing in all 50 states and building the state of-the-art infrastructure necessary to win back the White House in 2028 — are ambitious and necessary, but they can only be achieved by raising money," Elrod said. Looking ahead, Teboe said that Democrats may be successful in next year's midterms "as a reaction to Trump's overreach but it will take a new generation of voices to get the party out of this mess." "Those voices will emerge in the 2028 primary and we will have the chance to rebuild a stronger Democratic Party outside of the influence of the old guard that seems incapable of understanding what motivates normal Americans," he said. The Republicans' money advantage comes after a 2024 election cycle during which Tesla founder Elon Musk poured nearly $300 million into helping elect Republicans. Musk's surge of donations to help elect Trump certainly took some pressure off the rest of the party's fundraising apparatus. It's unclear what the RNC might have decided to pay for last year's elections, were it not for Musk's millions. Musk last month said that he was going to do "a lot less" political spending in the future. It's also unclear how Trump will use the millions he has raised in a group of PACs since he won the November election. Should Trump choose to donate to Republican candidates and get out the vote efforts next year, the RNC could again find itself under less pressure to shell out cash than the DNC. But Trump's financial support has traditionally not been geared towards helping the party at large. Rather, Trump has contributed relatively small amounts to help elect his closest allies. He has also played a significant role in Republican primary races, endorsing MAGA candidates who, in some cases, have struggled to win the backing of moderate Republicans and independent voters.
an hour ago
GOP's food stamp plan is found to violate Senate rules. It's the latest setback for Trump's big bill
WASHINGTON -- In another blow to the Republicans' tax and spending cut bill, the Senate parliamentarian has advised that a proposal to shift some food stamps costs from the federal government to states — a centerpiece of GOP savings efforts — would violate the chamber's rules. While the parliamentarian's rulings are advisory, they are rarely, if ever, ignored. The Republican leadership was scrambling on Saturday, days before voting is expected to begin on President Donald Trump's package that he wants to be passed into law by the Fourth of July. The loss is expected to be costly to Republicans. They have been counting on some tens of billions of potential savings from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP, to help offset the costs of the $4.5 trillion tax breaks plan. The parliamentarian let stand for now a provision that would impose new work requirements for older Americans, up to age 65, to receive food stamp aid. 'We will keep fighting to protect families in need,' said Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, the top Democrat on the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee, which handles the SNAP program. 'The Parliamentarian has made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance costs to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts,' she said. The committee chairman, Sen. John Boozman, R-Ark., said in a statement that his team is examining options that would comply with Senate rules to achieve savings and "to ensure SNAP serves those who truly need it while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.' The parliamentarian's ruling is the latest in a series of setbacks as staff works through the weekend, often toward midnight, to assess the 1,000-page proposal. It all points to serious trouble ahead for the bill, which was approved by the House on a party-line vote last month over unified opposition from Democrats and is now undergoing revisions in the Senate. At its core, the goal of the multitrillion-dollar package is to extend tax cuts from Trump's first term that would otherwise expire if Congress fails to act. It also adds new ones, including no taxes on tips or overtime pay. To help offset the costs of lost tax revenue, the Republicans are proposing cutbacks to federal Medicaid, health care and food programs — some $1 trillion. Additionally, the package boosts national security spending by about $350 billion, including to pay for Trump's mass deportations, which are running into protests nationwide. Trump has implored Republicans, who have the majority in Congress, to deliver on his top domestic priority, but the details of the package, with its hodgepodge of priorities, is drawing deeper scrutiny. All told, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the package, as approved by the House, would add at least $2.4 trillion to the nation's red ink over the decade and leave 10.9 million more people without health care coverage. Additionally, it would reduce or eliminate food stamps for more than 3 million people. The parliamentarian's office is tasked with scrutinizing the bill to ensure it complies with the so-called Byrd Rule, which is named after the late Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and bars many policy matters in the budget reconciliation process now being used. Late Friday, the parliamentarian issued its latest findings. It determined that Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee's proposal to have the states pick up more of the tab for covering food stamps — what Republicans call a new cost-sharing arrangement — would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. Many lawmakers said the states would not be able to absorb the new requirement on food aid, which has long been provided by the federal government. They warned many would lose access to SNAP benefits used by more than 40 million people. Initially, the CBO had estimated about $128 billion in savings under the House's proposal to shift SNAP food aid costs to the states. Cost estimates for the Senate's version, which made changes to the House approach, have not yet been made publicly available. The parliamentarian's office rulings leave GOP leaders with several options. They can revise the proposals to try to comply with Senate rules or strip them from the package altogether. They can also risk a challenge during floor voting, which would require the 60-vote threshold to overcome. That would be unlikely in the split chamber with Democrats opposing the overall package. The parliamentarian's latest advice also said the committee's provision to make certain immigrants ineligible for food stamps would violate the rule. It found several provisions from the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which is led by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, to be in violation. They include one to provide $250 million to Coast Guard stations damaged by fire in 2025, namely one on South Padre Island in Texas. Still to come are some of the most important rulings from the parliamentarian. One will assess the GOP's approach that relies on 'current policy' rather than 'current law' as the baseline for determining whether the bill will add to the nation's deficits. Already, the parliamentarian delivered a serious setback Thursday, finding that the GOP plan to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was a core proposal coming from the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, would be in violation of the Byrd Rule. The parliamentarian has also advised of violations over provisions from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that would rollback Environmental Protection Agency emissions standards on certain vehicles and from the Senate Armed Services Committee to require the defense secretary to provide a plan on how the Pentagon intends to spend the tens of billions of new funds. The new work requirements in the package would require many of those receiving SNAP or Medicaid benefits to work 80 hours a month or engage in other community or educational services.
