Story
When Federal Judges Disobey the Law
Is Amnesia or Arrogance Behind Disclosure Errors?
July 5, 2000
By Sydney H. Schanberg
This being Fourth of July week and therefore a time to remember the Declaration of Independence and its tenet that all beings are created equal, it seems appropriate to note that at least one branch of the federal government is not fully in step with the document's egalitarian principles. I refer not to Congress or the President, the usual suspects, but rather to the federal judiciary, some of whose members appear to have all at once forgotten the overthrow of royal rule in this land some two centuries ago.
A summary of events may be helpful. For nine months, beginning last Fall, the policy-making body for federal judges (who number about 1,600) had refused to obey the Ethics in Government Act by refusing to release to APBnews.com the judges' public financial disclosure forms. Then a couple of weeks ago, with a lawsuit and bad publicity hanging over them, they seemed to have reconnected with common sense and began releasing the disclosure statements that are required by the law.
But oddly, when the documents were examined, it became clear that a number of them had failed to mention a lot of interesting stuff, such as gift-junkets they had received -- from conservative groups who put on seminars but also provide golf and tennis and horseback riding as well as open bars.
Free junkets to posh resorts
These all-expenses-paid events are held in vacation spots ranging from island resorts in Florida to historic retreats in Montana. The seminars last one or two weeks and the per-person dollar value runs into the thousands of dollars. Some judges take friends or family members on these trips. When asked, they say they pay for their guests themselves. Federal law requires the judges to disclose any gift of $250 or more. When these junkets first came to light in news reports two years ago, the Judicial Conference, the policy-making body of the federal judiciary, sent a strictly worded memo to all the judges reminding them of the need to report "such trips."
After all of the negative publicity that accompanied the refusal to release the financial statements to Internet news organizations, the judges had to know that the statements would eventually come under intense scrutiny. Would it then be unfair to suggest that those judges who persisted in not reporting their "seminar" gifts were suffering either from amnesia or arrogance?
'Couldn't remember who paid'
Three of the non-disclosing judges actually told the Washington Post's Joe Stephens, who broke this story last week, that they couldn't remember who paid for their trips. The memory-loss thing again. All denied they were trying to hide anything. "It just slipped through," said an Appeals Court judge in Boston who took a two-week trip to Hilton Head Island, S.C. sponsored by a group called the Law and Economics Center. (This group's financial backing is provided by corporate foundations such as the Ford Motor Co. Fund and the Proctor & Gamble Fund and by private foundations like the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Its seminars have such titles as "Real Science vs. Junk Science" and "Health and Environmental Misconceptions.")
The Ethics in Government Act, a 1978 reform statute that grew out of the Watergate abuse-of-power mess, requires all high-ranking federal officials -- judges specifically included -- to file annual financial disclosure statements listing their assets and sources of income. The purpose is to discourage government poobahs, fallible like all other souls, from having those forgetful moments that could lead to intimations of conflicts of interest, moments such as voting for legislation or handing down decisions that affect companies they hold stock in or have received money or gifts from.
Defying the law
It was never quite clear why the judicial leadership, after obeying the law for 20 years, suddenly decided to defy it last fall. Until then, the judges had been making their financial statements available to the press and public without protest. In a confused public statement at the time, the judges said it was because an Internet site -- APBnews.com -- had asked for the financial statements and that the Internet created a "security" risk for them and their families that somehow was not posed by releasing the same information to print or broadcast news organizations.
Again and again, the judges have cited their concern for personal safety. They talk about threats from dissatisfied litigants or felons they have sentenced. But what does this have to do with the proper filing of financial statements? The statements do not ask for any identifying personal data, such as addresses or social security numbers or bank account numbers or names of family members. Not only that, but under the law, before releasing the statements to the public or press, the judges are allowed to go over them again and redact any personal data that might have been mistakenly included.
Judges similar to CIA agents?
Chief Justice William Rehnquist has also cited the security issue. In a recent speech, he suggested that federal judges were similar to CIA agents, whose anonymity is protected and who therefore are not required to file public financial reports. And he pointed to three judges murdered in recent years, failing to mention that none of these deaths were linked in even the remotest of ways to information contained in any financial disclosure document.
There is no dispute about the level of integrity of the federal courts. The vast majority of judges are men and women with high ethical standards -- higher probably than any of the state judiciaries. But the message some judges are sending, inadvertently or otherwise, is that they are a special class that merits preferential treatment. This streak of elitism is something heard from certain judges from time to time. Some will even tell you privately that they are above the crowd because they gave up really big money in corporate lawyering to serve on the bench and therefore deserve special privileges. This is high-grade hooey. What they deserve, if they earn it, is the public's regard and respect. Does a journalist rise above the law because he's ethical? Does an honest cop deserve any special right to skirt the law because he gave up a chance to choose a more lucrative profession?
The Ethics in Government act is what it says it is -- an instrument to compel more disclosure and sunshine -- not less. The old-guard elitists among the federal judges would serve everyone better, including their own embarassed selves, if they stopped dragging their feet, filled out their financial forms with candor and made them available to everybody. There is no security issue. But there is an issue of trust.
When Federal Judges Disobey the Law
Is Amnesia or Arrogance Behind Disclosure Errors?
July 5, 2000
By Sydney H. Schanberg
This being Fourth of July week and therefore a time to remember the Declaration of Independence and its tenet that all beings are created equal, it seems appropriate to note that at least one branch of the federal government is not fully in step with the document's egalitarian principles. I refer not to Congress or the President, the usual suspects, but rather to the federal judiciary, some of whose members appear to have all at once forgotten the overthrow of royal rule in this land some two centuries ago.
A summary of events may be helpful. For nine months, beginning last Fall, the policy-making body for federal judges (who number about 1,600) had refused to obey the Ethics in Government Act by refusing to release to APBnews.com the judges' public financial disclosure forms. Then a couple of weeks ago, with a lawsuit and bad publicity hanging over them, they seemed to have reconnected with common sense and began releasing the disclosure statements that are required by the law.
But oddly, when the documents were examined, it became clear that a number of them had failed to mention a lot of interesting stuff, such as gift-junkets they had received -- from conservative groups who put on seminars but also provide golf and tennis and horseback riding as well as open bars.
Free junkets to posh resorts
These all-expenses-paid events are held in vacation spots ranging from island resorts in Florida to historic retreats in Montana. The seminars last one or two weeks and the per-person dollar value runs into the thousands of dollars. Some judges take friends or family members on these trips. When asked, they say they pay for their guests themselves. Federal law requires the judges to disclose any gift of $250 or more. When these junkets first came to light in news reports two years ago, the Judicial Conference, the policy-making body of the federal judiciary, sent a strictly worded memo to all the judges reminding them of the need to report "such trips."
After all of the negative publicity that accompanied the refusal to release the financial statements to Internet news organizations, the judges had to know that the statements would eventually come under intense scrutiny. Would it then be unfair to suggest that those judges who persisted in not reporting their "seminar" gifts were suffering either from amnesia or arrogance?
'Couldn't remember who paid'
Three of the non-disclosing judges actually told the Washington Post's Joe Stephens, who broke this story last week, that they couldn't remember who paid for their trips. The memory-loss thing again. All denied they were trying to hide anything. "It just slipped through," said an Appeals Court judge in Boston who took a two-week trip to Hilton Head Island, S.C. sponsored by a group called the Law and Economics Center. (This group's financial backing is provided by corporate foundations such as the Ford Motor Co. Fund and the Proctor & Gamble Fund and by private foundations like the Sarah Scaife Foundation. Its seminars have such titles as "Real Science vs. Junk Science" and "Health and Environmental Misconceptions.")
The Ethics in Government Act, a 1978 reform statute that grew out of the Watergate abuse-of-power mess, requires all high-ranking federal officials -- judges specifically included -- to file annual financial disclosure statements listing their assets and sources of income. The purpose is to discourage government poobahs, fallible like all other souls, from having those forgetful moments that could lead to intimations of conflicts of interest, moments such as voting for legislation or handing down decisions that affect companies they hold stock in or have received money or gifts from.
Defying the law
It was never quite clear why the judicial leadership, after obeying the law for 20 years, suddenly decided to defy it last fall. Until then, the judges had been making their financial statements available to the press and public without protest. In a confused public statement at the time, the judges said it was because an Internet site -- APBnews.com -- had asked for the financial statements and that the Internet created a "security" risk for them and their families that somehow was not posed by releasing the same information to print or broadcast news organizations.
Again and again, the judges have cited their concern for personal safety. They talk about threats from dissatisfied litigants or felons they have sentenced. But what does this have to do with the proper filing of financial statements? The statements do not ask for any identifying personal data, such as addresses or social security numbers or bank account numbers or names of family members. Not only that, but under the law, before releasing the statements to the public or press, the judges are allowed to go over them again and redact any personal data that might have been mistakenly included.
Judges similar to CIA agents?
Chief Justice William Rehnquist has also cited the security issue. In a recent speech, he suggested that federal judges were similar to CIA agents, whose anonymity is protected and who therefore are not required to file public financial reports. And he pointed to three judges murdered in recent years, failing to mention that none of these deaths were linked in even the remotest of ways to information contained in any financial disclosure document.
There is no dispute about the level of integrity of the federal courts. The vast majority of judges are men and women with high ethical standards -- higher probably than any of the state judiciaries. But the message some judges are sending, inadvertently or otherwise, is that they are a special class that merits preferential treatment. This streak of elitism is something heard from certain judges from time to time. Some will even tell you privately that they are above the crowd because they gave up really big money in corporate lawyering to serve on the bench and therefore deserve special privileges. This is high-grade hooey. What they deserve, if they earn it, is the public's regard and respect. Does a journalist rise above the law because he's ethical? Does an honest cop deserve any special right to skirt the law because he gave up a chance to choose a more lucrative profession?
The Ethics in Government act is what it says it is -- an instrument to compel more disclosure and sunshine -- not less. The old-guard elitists among the federal judges would serve everyone better, including their own embarassed selves, if they stopped dragging their feet, filled out their financial forms with candor and made them available to everybody. There is no security issue. But there is an issue of trust.
Animal Farm strikes again.