How America’s Judges Are Being Bought Out

We think of courts as being immune to money interests. Some of them, as disclosure reports for state Supreme Court judges reveal, are not.

National Journal
Marina Koren
Add to Briefcase
Marina Koren
Dec. 4, 2013, midnight

In re­cent years, some ju­di­cial elec­tions have be­gun to look just like polit­ic­al cam­paigns, com­plete with at­tack ads, polit­ic­al ac­tion com­mit­tees, and mil­lions of dol­lars in fun­drais­ing for can­did­ates. The fin­an­cial in­volve­ment of spe­cial-in­terest groups in state Su­preme Court races across the coun­try has blurred the bound­ar­ies between money and polit­ics and justice, alarm­ing cit­izens and eth­i­cists alike.

After all, such en­tan­gle­ment can por­tend cor­rup­tion once judges reach the bench. But it’s not the only re­cipe for con­flict in the courtroom, ac­cord­ing to a re­port re­leased Wed­nes­day by the Cen­ter for Pub­lic In­teg­rity, a non­par­tis­an, in­vest­ig­at­ive news or­gan­iz­a­tion.

When judges have a con­flict of in­terest in a giv­en case, they should re­cuse them­selves. But some­times that doesn’t hap­pen.

The per­son­al fin­ances of the 335 judges presid­ing in the states’ highest courts, of­ten shrouded in poor dis­clos­ure re­quire­ments, may in­flu­ence rul­ings, CPI found, wheth­er the justices know it or not. Ap­peals to de­cisions from a lower court to the U.S. Su­preme Court are rare, un­less there’s a ques­tion of con­sti­tu­tion­al law.

Us­ing in­put from ju­di­cial-eth­ics ex­perts, CPI built a re­port card eval­u­at­ing states’ fin­an­cial-re­port­ing re­quire­ments for state Su­preme Court judges (meth­od­o­logy here). The grad­ing sys­tem was based on a slightly tough­er ver­sion of dis­clos­ure re­quire­ments for fed­er­al judges, which re­ceived a B.

The top scorers, Cali­for­nia and Mary­land, re­ceived C’s. Six oth­ers got D’s, and the rest, in­clud­ing the Dis­trict of Columbia, failed. See a full break­down here.

Fin­an­cial-re­port­ing re­quire­ments for justices, the CPI re­port ex­plains, vary wildly from state to state. Ken­tucky does not re­quire its judges to dis­close the names of com­pan­ies in which they have a fin­an­cial in­terest. Ohio asks about gifts the judges re­ceive, but not how much they’re worth. In Montana, Utah, and Idaho, judges don’t have to file any dis­clos­ure re­ports at all.

CPI’s in­vest­ig­a­tion in­to just three years of fil­ings turned up some sur­prises. Some judges had au­thored opin­ions fa­vor­ing com­pan­ies in which they owned stock. Oth­ers ruled on cases when their fam­ily mem­bers were re­ceiv­ing in­come from one of the parties in­volved, while some ac­cep­ted gifts as lav­ish as a $50,000 trip to Italy.

Of the 273 judges re­quired to dis­close stock hold­ings, just un­der 40 per­cent re­por­ted own­ing stock. Of the 201 judges who are re­quired to dis­close spe­cif­ic value of gifts, 82 per­cent re­por­ted re­ceiv­ing roughly $279,000 in free stuff, about $1,800 per judge.

All told, CPI found 35 ex­amples of gifts, over­lap­ping in­vest­ments, and oth­er con­flicts that it deemed “ques­tion­able” — and it names names. These find­ings came even with, by the group’s meas­ure, poor dis­clos­ure prac­tices and, in some cases, even worse en­force­ment of trans­par­ency. The ma­jor­ity of states pen­al­ize judges for er­rors or dis­crep­an­cies in dis­clos­ure re­ports, from fines to jail time. Twelve states, however, rely on self-poli­cing, us­ing com­mit­tees of the high-court judges them­selves to dole out dis­cip­line.

What We're Following See More »
PLANS TO CURB ITS POWER
Pruitt Confirmed As EPA Head
2 days ago
BREAKING
WOULD HAVE REPLACED FLYNN
Harward Turns Down NSC Job
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"Ret. Vice Adm. Bob Harward turned down President Donald Trump's offer to be national security adviser Thursday, depriving the administration of a top candidate for a critical foreign policy post days after Trump fired Michael Flynn." Among the potential reasons: his family, his lack of assurances that he could build his own team, and that "the White House seems so chaotic."

Source:
REVERSES OBAMA RULE
House Votes to Let States Block Planned Parenthood Funds
3 days ago
THE LATEST

"The House passed a resolution Thursday re-opening the door for states to block Planned Parenthood from receiving some federal funds. The measure, which passed 230-188, would reverse a last-minute rule from the Obama administration that said conservative states can't block the women's health and abortion provider from receiving family planning dollars under the Title X program."

Source:
FORMER PROSECUTOR
Alexander Acosta to Get Nod for Labor
3 days ago
THE LATEST
12:30 PRESS CONFERENCE
New Labor Secretary Announcement Coming
3 days ago
BREAKING
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login