News & Updates

Judges must be held accountable for conduct that violates their codes of conduct and governing laws. A recent Reuters report on judicial misconduct, while not quite comprehensive, is an important reminder that we need to know more about this topic that is arguably central to public trust and confidence and—more importantly—justice and the rule of law.

In April 2019, the California State Auditor filed her report on an investigation into the Commission on Judicial Performance, the state's judicial conduct body. There is growing interest nationally in judicial misconduct and the entities in each state (and federally) that investigate complaints, and in 2018, IAALS prepared its own Recommendations for Judicial Discipline Systems.

IAALS’ recent report describes a large but relatively unknown group of executive branch adjudicators who are not "Administrative Law Judges" (ALJs) governed by the Administrative Procedure Act. The report describes principal Non-ALJ characteristics, giving special attention to the degree to which agencies that employ them seek to protect their impartiality.

According to news reports, a state district judge in Oklahoma agreed to resign following a petition describing numerous acts of misconduct. The case illustrates several aspects of state judicial discipline highlighted in a recent IAALS report.

In mid-November, President Obama nominated Raymond P. Moore, a federal public defender, for a vacancy on the United States District Court of Colorado, which will open with the new year. Despite the fact that the process by which Moore was nominated mirrors versions used by twenty-one other states, there is concern that he may face a lengthy confirmation period, which has become a trend during Obama’s presidency.