Lawmakers Seek Investigation of Judges Who Criticized Supreme Court

Politics|Lawmakers Seek Investigation of Judges Who Criticized Supreme Court

The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees appealed to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday to look into whether federal judges who responded to a New York Times questionnaire with criticism of the Supreme Court had violated their ethics obligations.

“We are deeply concerned that these public attacks on the court from sitting federal judges damage the public’s faith and confidence in our judicial system,” Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio wrote in a letter to Mr. Roberts. “When judges call into question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, they erode faith in the institution itself.”

The letter comes weeks after The Times published an article in which dozens of federal judges accused the Supreme Court of mishandling its emergency docket, complaining that its orders were too brief, opaque and vague for the lower courts to follow — particularly in the many cases where the justices issued emergency orders, but offered no reasoning for their decision.

Though the several dozen judges who responded to the questionnaire represent only a fraction of the federal bench, it is exceedingly rare that so many would sound off about their frustrations with the Supreme Court — especially in a newspaper, even if the complaints were anonymous. (One even likened the relationship between their judicial district and the highest court to a “war zone.”)

Mr. Grassley and Mr. Jordan seized on that as they raised concerns, pointing out that the code of conduct for federal judges states that judges “should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” and “should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

“Anonymous, public comments from sitting judges describing the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts as a ‘war zone,’ accusing the Supreme Court of ‘undermining the lower courts,’ and otherwise impugning the legitimacy of Supreme Court rulings undermines public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary,” the chairmen wrote.

“It would be reasonable for a member of the public to view these statements as commenting on partisan issues and ongoing litigation,” they added, noting that would also violate the code of conduct. They asked Chief Justice Roberts to report back to Congress on whether he had ordered an investigation or cautioned federal judges against such conduct.

Charlie Stadtlander, a spokesman for The Times, defended the article.

“This reporting brought forward important issues about the federal judiciary, an important service to help the American public understand a debate within one of the three branches of their government,” he said.

But even some advocates pushing to overhaul how the Supreme Court operates said some of Mr. Grassley’s and Mr. Jordan’s concerns were arguably well placed.

“There’s always declining trust in American institutions, and the last thing that we need is infighting among the different tiers of our judiciary,” said Gabe Roth of Fix the Court, an advocacy group that has pushed for more transparency and other changes at the court. “When the Supreme Court speaks, the lower courts must follow, and denigrating or undermining that would be a violation.”

But Mr. Roth said it was possible the good from so many judges coming forward could outweigh the harm of the court system’s struggles spilling into a public forum.

The anonymous judges are “not weighing in on the merits” of cases, he said, but “more saying this is a challenge for us to follow what you’re saying when what you’re saying can be written on the space of a napkin.”

Other legal scholars have voiced a similar opinion about the judges who responded to the Times questionnaire, particularly when conservatives and allies of President Trump began to either dismiss them as disgruntled outliers, or condemn them.

“Whatever one thinks of judges participating in such a survey, they’re sending a warning that we (and the justices, especially) should all take seriously,” wrote Stephen I. Vladeck, an expert on federal courts and a professor at Georgetown University, wrote in a recent blog post.