Judges often quit to avoid misconduct investigations. A new bill in Congress would stop that.
Several judges have resigned or retired after facing allegations of sexism or misconduct.
A new bill would let the judiciary continue to investigate claims even after judges step down.
It's currently only supported by Democrats, the minority party in both houses of Congress.
Federal judges staring down investigations about sexism or misconduct in office have used a loophole: Retire or resign, and the investigation goes away. A new bill could end the practice.
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 José Antonio Fusté 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 Fusté.
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.
A representative for Republicans on the House judiciary committee didn't respond to a request for comment.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
36 minutes ago
- Axios
Into the MAGA-verse: What the algorithm feeds Gen Z
If you'd paid attention to MAGA media in the months leading up to the 2024 election, the surprise wasn't that young voters swung hard toward President Trump. The surprise was that so many people missed it. Why it matters: Gen Z's digital world became a powerful political incubator for the Republican Party in 2024 — a force for persuasion and community-building that reshaped the youth vote in astonishing ways. Seemingly overnight, MAGA took command of a full-fledged social ecosystem that met many young Americans where they already were. It was a cultural and political revolution hiding in plain sight — yet it blindsided the Democratic establishment, which is now scrambling to understand how it happened, and how to fight back. Zoom in: Axios reporters Erica Pandey and Tal Axelrod set out to experience the MAGA-verse online — in real time. We each created new accounts on TikTok — where Gen Z disproportionately gets its news — and followed a basic set of MAGA or MAGA-aligned accounts: Think Team Trump, Tucker Carlson, Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens. TikTok knew that Tal was a 30-year-old man and Erica was a 30-year-old woman. From there, the algorithm took control. At first, we got what we expected: Clips from Trump rallies, viral moments from Kirk's podcasts, and segments from Fox News. Then, our experiences diverged. Tal was fed a steady stream of masculinity content: Endurance athlete David Goggins berating men with motivational speeches, podcaster Chris Williamson interviewing guests about male struggles. Erica's "For You" page zeroed in on three topics: 1) right-wing critiques of modern feminism pulling women away from marriage and motherhood; 2) debates around trans women in sports; and 3) the ethics of abortion. The intrigue: It took less than an hour for the algorithm to move us from standard MAGA content to deeper ideological terrain — podcast clips, campus debates, and "red pill" rants about gender roles and identity. We didn't go looking for this content — it came to us. And it revealed a striking pattern: right-wing views on gender and identity are digitally intertwined with MAGA politics. Dip your toe in, and the algorithm grabs your ankle: Interested in mixed martial arts and the UFC? You might land on a pro-Trump hype reel. Interested in lifestyle content? You might end up with conservative takes on motherhood and marriage. Between the lines: Much of the gender-based content we observed wasn't overtly political or fringe — at least not at first. "A lot of this gets glamorized on social media," says Rachel Janfaza, a youth political analyst and writer of The Up and Up, a newsletter about Gen Z. "You see influencers talking about how amazing it is to be a stay-at-home girlfriend or stay-at-home mom and cook and clean." "Trad wife" and "manosphere" videos perform extraordinarily well. "It's kind of this vicious cycle where these social media algorithms are naturally going to be favorable towards content that is a little bit more inflammatory and click-worthy," said Ali Mortell, the director of research at Democratic data firm Blue Rose Research. "And then on top of that, the political right, not just in the United States, but globally, has really leaned into that shift in the earned media environment in a way" that the left has not, Mortell added.


The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Senate parliamentarian strikes key SNAP spending cuts from GOP megabill
The Senate parliamentarian on Friday ruled against several more Republican provisions in President Trump's megabill, including language to bar immigrants who are not citizens or lawful permanent residents from receiving food assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, also ruled against a key Republican pay-for in the bill, a proposal requiring states to pay for a certain percentage of food assistance under SNAP depending on those states' error rates in delivering aid. The proposal to shift SNAP costs onto the states was a sticking point with Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine). The parliamentarian's ruling could make it easier for Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) to pick up Murkowski's and Collins's support as the SNAP-related pay-for will now need to be stripped from the legislation. The Senate bill as drafted would have required states to pay between 5 and 15 percent of food benefits in 2028 on their rate of error in paying out food benefits. Almost every state in the country has had error rates of 6 percent or higher, which would have shifted a significant percentage of the cost for delivering food assistance onto the states. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that the Senate language would have cost North Carolina, for example, to pay up to $438 million for food aid in 2028. MacDonough struck another blow against the GOP leadership's agenda by ruling against a section to extend the suspension of permanent price support authority, something that traditionally has been part of the farm bill. Congress passed a one-year extension of the farm bill in December after Democrats and Republicans failed to reach a deal on a multi-year extension of the law due to disagreements over SNAP funding. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, applauded the parliamentarian's decision on Friday. 'The Senate parliamentarian has begun providing guidance that certain provisions in the Republicans' One Big, Beautiful Betrayal will be subject to the Byrd Rule — ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill or altered to comply with the rules of reconciliation,' Merkley said in a statement. 'As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book at advance their conservative families lose and billionaires win agenda, this process has rules and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced,' he added. 'We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor.' Provisions of the reconciliation package that the parliamentarian decides violate the Senate's Byrd Rule are not eligible to pass with a simple-majority vote. If Thune and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) don't remove provisions found to be in violation of the Byrd Rule, the Republican package would need to muster 60 votes to advance. The parliamentarian ruled against several provisions of the bill under the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction, including a section that appropriated $250 million to Coast Guard stations on South Padre Island, Texas, damaged by fire in 2025. She also ruled that language allocating $85 million to transfer the space shuttle on display at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum to a non-profit group in Texas would not be eligible for the budget reconciliation fast track. Provisions found not to comply with the Byrd Rule would need at least 60 votes to overcome a point-of-order objection.


Atlantic
an hour ago
- Atlantic
How Tehran Might Be Playing Trump
President Donald Trump is being pulled toward war in the Middle East by his predator's eye for a victim's weakness and his ego's need to claim the work of others as his own. But since his 'unconditional surrender' social-media post on Tuesday, other Trump instincts have asserted themselves: above all, his fear of responsibility. Trump enjoys wielding power. He flinches from accountability. Days ago, Trump seemed to hunger for entry into Israel's war. A dramatic victory seemed poised to tumble into somebody's lap. Why not his? But as the hours passed, Trump reconsidered. Instead of acting, he postponed. He said that a decision would come within 'two weeks.' Time for diplomacy to work? Perhaps that might be the case in another administration. In this one, as attentive Trump watchers have learned, the 'two weeks' promise is a way of shirking a decision altogether, whether on Russia sanctions (deadline lapsed June 11, without action), trade deals (deadline lapsed June 12, without result), or a much-heralded infrastructure program (deadline lapsed May 20, 2017, without action then or ever). During his first term, Trump claimed to have taken the U.S. to the verge of war with Iran in the summer of 2019, only to cancel the mission (again, by his own account) 10 minutes before mission launch. The story, as Trump told it, can hardly have impressed the rulers of Iran with the U.S. president's commitment and resolve. But the experience of 2019 could suggest to the Iranian regime a strategy for 2025: Step 1: Absorb the Israeli strikes, as painful and humiliating as they are. Step 2: Mobilize Russian President Vladimir Putin to dissuade Trump from military action. Step 3: Agree to return to negotiations if Trump forces a cease-fire on Israel. Step 4: Dawdle, obfuscate, and generally play for time. Step 5: Reconstitute whatever remains of the Iranian nuclear program. This strategy would play on all of Trump's pressure points, especially his unwillingness to ever do anything that Putin does not want. It would leave Israel in the lurch, but over the years Trump has left many other allies like that. Trump is vulnerable to the negotiate-to-delay strategy because he has not taken any of the necessary steps to lead the nation into the war he once seemed ready to join. Trump has not asked Congress for any kind of authorization. The decision, he insists, will be his and his alone. Which will be feasible if the operation turns out as Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada did in 1983: over in a few days with few U.S. casualties and at minimal cost. But Grenada was a nearby island nation with a population of less than 100,000; Iran is a regional power with a population of more than 90 million. War with Iran will also need real money. The 78-day air war against Serbia in 1998 cost the U.S. and its NATO allies a comparatively modest $7 billion (about $14 billion in today's dollars). Iran is likely to prove a more dangerous enemy than Serbia was. Israel's air war against Iran costs about $1 billion a day, according to estimates published by Ynet News. A fight with Iran will likely require some kind of supplemental appropriation above the present defense budget. Congress may balk at funding a costly war it did not approve in the first place. Trump has not put competent leadership in charge of the nation's defense or domestic security. Trump's secretary of defense is accused by his own former advisers and friends of playacting a role that completely exceeds his abilities. If Iran retaliates with terror attacks inside the United States or on American interests abroad, it will find the U.S. desperately vulnerable. Trump purged experienced leaders from counterterrorism jobs. He installed underqualified culture warriors atop the FBI, and appointed at the Department of Homeland Security a cosplaying partisan who diverted $200 million of agency resources to a 'Thank You Trump' advertising campaign. Trump has not mobilized allies other than Israel. The United States has generally fought its major wars alongside coalition partners. Even Trump did so in his first term. France, the United Kingdom, and many other partners shouldered heavy burdens in the 2014–17 campaign in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State terror group. But Trump did not assemble that coalition; he inherited it from the Obama administration. Trump shows no inclination to try assembling his own in 2025. Trump has not rallied domestic public opinion. Before this year, only a minority of Republicans and not even a third of Democrats regarded Iran as an important security threat to the United States. George W. Bush went to war in Iraq with almost three-quarters of Americans behind him. As late as the spring of 2006, half the country still supported Bush's war. Trump will begin a war with Iran with less support than Bush could muster after three years in Iraq. Nor does Trump have any evident path to broadening support. As my former Atlantic colleague Ronald Brownstein quips, Trump is governing as a wartime president, but the war into which he has led the country is red America's culture war against blue America: Even as Trump weighs the deployment of U.S. air power against Iran, he's leading a federal military occupation of California. Trump seems to recognize that he cannot unify the nation and therefore dares not lead it into any arduous or hazardous undertaking. That may be the secret self-awareness behind Trump's 'two weeks' hesitation. This is not a self-awareness that will help Israel or secure the United States' long-term interest in depriving Iran of a nuclear weapon. But in the absence of any strategic planning or preparedness, that self-awareness is all we have to guide the country through the next fortnight and, very possibly, a long succession of 'two weeks' after that.