By Sam Ozer-Staton
Last week, a bombshell Wall Street Journal investigative report revealed that more than 130 federal judges have violated U.S. law and judicial ethics by overseeing court cases involving companies in which they or their family owned stock. The Journal found that since 2010, judges have collectively failed to recuse themselves from 685 court cases. Judgesâ stockholdings exceeded $15,000 in 173 cases and $50,000 in 21 of those cases.
The report comes at a time when the judiciary is going through a crisis of public confidence. Increasingly, federal judges â from the Supreme Court to the District Court level â are seen not as objective arbiters of the law but as agents of a particular political agenda. In 2018, when Judge Jon S. Tigar of the District Court for Northern California issued an injunction blocking President Trumpâs asylum policy, Trump attacked the judge, calling him a biased âObama judge.â That prompted Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to release an unusual statement defending the independence of the federal judiciary. âWe do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,â Roberts said. âWhat we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.â
The Journalâs report delivers another blow to the integrity of the judiciary. But while much has been made of the recent increase in partisan behavior among federal judges, much less focus has been given to the kind of quintessential financial corruption (or at least the appearance of it) that the report exposes. And it begs the question: What consequences should judges face if they hear cases involving companies in which they own stock?
