Judiciary
Boycotting law clerks to pressure schools might ‘cross an important line,’ 8th Circuit chief judge says
A federal judge who boycotted the hiring of Columbia University graduates as law clerks won’t have to face a misconduct complaint, even though his actions raise a substantial ethical issue, according to the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis. (Image from Shutterstock)
A federal judge who boycotted the hiring of Columbia University graduates as law clerks won’t have to face a misconduct complaint, even though his actions raise a substantial ethical issue, according to the chief judge of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at St. Louis.
8th Circuit Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton tossed a misconduct complaint against the boycotting judge, who is apparently U.S. District Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the District of North Dakota, report Reuters and Bloomberg Law.
Traynor is one of 13 judges who signed a letter to Columbia announcing the boycott because they disapproved of the school’s handling of disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian protesters. He is not identified in Colloton’s April 8 decision, but he is the only judge in the group within the 8th Circuit.
Colloton’s decision became public after the 8th Circuit’s judicial council declined to review it Thursday, Reuters explains.
Colloton said Traynor had no notice that a boycott could be a problem when Traynor joined the other boycotting judges, and it would be unfair to hold him accountable. The issue may be appropriate for study, however, by members of the U.S. Judicial Conference who interpret the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges, Colloton said.
Ethics complaints have been tossed against other boycotting judges, including Judge James C. Ho of the 5th Circuit at New Orleans and Judge Elizabeth Branch of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta.
Colloton agreed that several allegations in a misconduct complaint filed against Traynor are unsubstantial.
“More substantial,” however, are questions about whether the boycott could “have a prejudicial effect on the administration” of justice and lower “public confidence in the courts,” Colloton said.
Although the boycott at issue was limited, “the practice—if approved and widely accepted—could proliferate,”
Colloton said.
“Widespread judicial boycotting based on issues of the day may well have the potential to embroil the judiciary in extrajudicial public controversies and to lower public confidence in the courts among reasonable people. There is thus a substantial question whether judges cross an important line when they go beyond expressing their personal views in an effort to persuade and begin using their power as government officials to pressure private institutions to conform to the judges’ preferences,” Colloton wrote.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
