We live in an increasingly politicized world. Last week, on October 22, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan and Subcommittee Chairman Darrell Issa wrote to the Judicial Conference of the United States asking it to review Judge Kathleen M. Williams’s order in the Trump v. IRS lawsuit. The Judge found that the President’s $10 billion suit against the IRS and Treasury Department, both of which President Trump ostensibly runs, was collusive and imposed sanctions on his lawyers. The chairmen want a report from the Judicial Conference on November 5, and their letter can be found here.
Putting aside the politics of it, whatever happens should be interesting from a legal and procedural perspective. The letter invokes Canons 2, 3, and 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. It asks the Conference to consider referring the matter to the Judicial Council of the Eleventh Circuit. Presuming the Conference ultimately files a complaint, it will go before Chief Judge William Pryor of the Eleventh Circuit. This would be, by my count, the third high-profile misconduct complaint to go before him this year: the one involving the judge accused of having sex in chambers, this recent one, and potentially this one.
As you likely know, Judge Williams’ order holds that the parties were never adverse, finds that the suit was brought “to gain the imprimatur of judicial legitimacy for a ‘settlement’ that had no viable basis in law or fact,” and imposes sanctions under Rule 11 and the court’s inherent authority. Those negatively effected appealed, and requests for stay were denied by both Judge Williams and an Eleventh Circuit panel. The appeal remains pending.
It will be interesting to see whether Chief Judge Pryor will discuss the underlying arguments of the letter (or whatever might ultimately be put in the complaint) or whether he will dismiss that complaint for being “directly related to the merits of a decision or procedural ruling.” 28 U.S.C. § 352(b)(1)(A)(ii). Last year, regarding the misconduct complaint against Chief Judge James Boasberg of the District of Columbia, the Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit did the latter, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction finding that the allegations were related to the merits. Whatever Chief Judge Pryor does, it will make news and--like seemingly everything else--it will be politicized. Hopefully, like Judge Middlebrook's million-dollar-sanction order against Trump, this too will blow over. I should note, however, that there is a pending petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on the Middlebrooks order.
UPDATE BY DOM — Blog privilege here by updating Jordi’s post with my own thoughts. The complaint is B.S. and pretty outrageous. Disagreement with a judge’s decision is not a basis to file a complaint. I’m sure it will be quickly dismissed. Judge Williams is being honored tonight with the Judge Hoeveler award. It’s a wonderful honor and well-deserved. And yes, I’m biased as Judge Williams was my former boss.
2 comments:
Nice update DOM. I like being apprised of the goings-on and this blog does that very well. But my view (at least in general) is if you go over 100 words in the post, have an angle or opinion or hot take, it’s not like this is a law review. I do agree this is bogus, not just squarely taking aim at the order’s reasoning without basis for referral. The “man” who lodged this referral remained silent in the face of abuse by those in power over teens when he also had a position of power. Revealing to see where he draws his lines for whistleblowing.
I too will admit my bias as Judge Williams was also once my boss. Nevertheless, as DOM stated, the "complaint" is indeed complete and total B.S. It is nothing more more than partisan hackery and transparently so. Congrats to Judge Williams on the Judge Hoeveler award.
Henry Bell
Post a Comment