“Reasonable judges often disagree with one another, sometimes strongly,” writes a Texas civil rights attorney, Jim Harrington, in a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct filed against a Fifth Circuit Judge. This time, though, Harrington alleges that the Judge went too far in the way she references her colleagues in her dissent.
The underlying case involves allegations of illegal gerrymandering for a Mississippi State Senate seat, District 22. After a bench trial, the district court found the existence of vote dilution and ordered the legislature to adopt a map submitted by the plaintiff’s experts as District 22’s new boundaries. On appeal, Harrington appeared before the Judge and two of her colleagues in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The majority of the three-judge panel issued a partial stay of the district court’s decision, giving lawmakers time to draw a new map. The dissent argues that the district court’s decision should have been completely blocked.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges violations of Canons 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. These Canons, among other mandates, require judges to “maintain and enforce high standards of conduct”; to avoid “behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased”; and to “act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Additionally, Canons 3 and 5 declare that judges “should not be swayed by partisan interests” and “should not engage in any other political activity.”
In the complaint, Harrington claims that the following three passages in the dissent violate the Judicial Canons:
- I am afraid defendants have simply had the poor luck of drawing a majority-minority panel.
- The fact remains that [U.S. District Court Judge Carlton W. Reeves]’s order—perhaps, inadvertently—eliminated meaningful competition for Thomas in the upcoming election. The majority says that Judge Reeves’s plan is ‘narrowly tailored.’ Agreed—it is ‘narrowly tailored’ to win Thomas the election.
- Unless we act now, the November election in Senate District 22 is all but decided. True, predictable election results are not uncommon. What is uncommon, however, is for a federal district judge to be the one to decide them.
(Emphasis added in Complaint.)
The first comment about a “majority-minority panel” allegedly refers to the fact that the two other judges on the panel were appointed by Democratic presidents, while the majority of sitting Fifth Circuit judges were appointed by Republican presidents—thereby implying that the majority decided the case on partisan considerations. The Complaint asserts that these statements are “highly partisan” and “insulting personal comments about her federal judicial colleagues,” and requests transfer of the proceeding to another circuit. There have been no further proceedings on this matter since the Complaint was filed on April 8th.
Read the full Complaint here.
Judicial Judicial
