In re Resolution of Judicial Misconduct Complaints About Dist. Judge Lynn Adelman

• Decision Date: 22 June 2020
• Docket Number: 07-20-90046,07-20-90045,Nos. 07-20-90044,s. 07-20-90044
• Parties: RESOLUTION OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS ABOUT DISTRICT JUDGE LYNN ADELMAN
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

965 F.3d 603

RESOLUTION OF JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT COMPLAINTS ABOUT DISTRICT JUDGE LYNN ADELMAN

Nos. 07-20-90044

07-20-90045

07-20-90046

Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit.

June 22, 2020

In March 2020, United States District Judge Lynn Adelman published a law review article entitled The Roberts Court's Assault on Democracy . 14 Harv. Law & Policy Rev. 131. Three complaints were filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act asserting that the publication of the article amounted to judicial misconduct. Chief Judge Diane P. Wood consolidated the complaints for disposition and appointed a committee under 28 U.S.C. § 353 and Rule 11(f) of the Rules for Judicial Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings. Chief Judge Wood served ex officio. District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. served on the committee, and Circuit Judge David F. Hamilton served as chair. The committee reviewed the article and available information, including Judge Adelman's responses to the complaints, and concluded that there was no need for a hearing for further evidence to resolve the complaints. The committee submitted a report and recommendation to the Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit, which has approved the proposed resolution of the complaints as set forth below.

I. The Article

The article speaks for itself, but a brief summary will make the discussion of the complaints and the issues clearer. The overall thesis is that over the last fifteen years, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued a number of decisions that have undermined the rights of poor people and minorities to vote and that have increased the economic and political power of corporations and wealthy individuals. The result, the article argues, is a form of government that is not as responsive as it should be to the will of the majority of the people.

Regarding diminished voting rights of poor people and minorities, the article discusses decisions on the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including Shelby County v. Holder and Abbott v. Perez , as well as cases on purges of voting rolls ( Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute ), voter-identification requirements ( Crawford v. Marion County Election Board ), and legislative gerrymandering based on party affiliation ( Rucho v. Common Cause ).¹

The discussion of corporate power focuses on campaign finance decisions, including Randall v. Sorrell , Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC , Davis v. FEC , Citizens United v. FEC , Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett , American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock , and McCutcheon v. FEC . The discussion also addresses expansion of commercial free-speech rights in Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. and several decisions reducing the rights of organized labor, including Janus v. AFSCME and Epic Systems v. Lewis .²

Judge Adelman's article argues that all of these decisions, which were resolved by closely divided votes, were decided wrongly and that the cumulative effects of these cases make the United States political system less representative and more fragile, and weaken the economic and political power of the middle class and the poor.

Judge Adelman's article begins:

By now it is a truism that Chief Justice John Roberts’ statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that a Supreme Court justice's role is the passive one of a neutral baseball "umpire who [merely] calls the balls and strikes," was a masterpiece of disingenuousness. Roberts’ misleading testimony inevitably comes to mind when one considers the course of decision-making by the Court over which he presides.

14 Harv. Law & Policy Rev. at 131. At various points the article also focuses on the Republican Party's support for measures to restrict voting rights and to enhance the political and economic power of corporations and the wealthy. The article also describes the party as having become "more partisan, more ideological and more uncompromising." Id . at 137.

II. The Complaints

1. Paul Rolf Jensen of California filed Complaint 07-20-90044 on March 16, 2020. The complaint asserted that Judge Adelman had falsely accused the Chief Justice of "lying under oath and being a tyrant," personally attacked Chief Justice Roberts, encouraged contempt and scorn for the Chief Justice and our judicial system, and more generally exhibited bias "against any litigant not adhering to his far-left ideology." Mr. Jensen attached Judge Adelman's article and several news articles and opinion columns commenting on the article.

2. Leslie E. Lauziere of North Carolina filed Complaint 07-20-90045 on March 23, 2020. The complaint quotes the opening two sentences of the article, infers that "members of the public with conservative points of view are to be castigated," and describes the article as "rife with purely partisan, political, anti-conservative doctrine" and as so partisan as to undermine confidence in the federal courts. The complaint notes: "I don't see how a party with a conservative background appearing before Judge Adelman could be confident that they would receive fair, even-handed treatment."

3. George and Cathy Kurtinitis of Iowa filed Complaint 07-20-90046 on March 24, 2020. The complaint asserts that the article "exposes [the judge's] bias against conservatives, in particular, Republicans and the conservative policies of President Trump." The complaint views the article as political activity inconsistent with the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.

III. Relevant Canons and Guidance

These complaints and the article implicate several provisions of the Code of Conduct and competing policy considerations in an area of judicial ethics where there is ample room for disagreement. The nation has a long tradition of vigorous public debate over Supreme Court decisions, and judges, including judges in the district and circuit courts, have long participated in those debates. Judges are able to bring special insight and perspective to those debates. At the same time, judges also have special responsibilities stemming from their roles in dispensing even-handed justice in all cases that come before them and in strengthening public confidence in the judiciary.

The following provisions are most relevant to the general topic of a judge's extrajudicial writing and speaking and to Judge Adelman's article in particular:

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should maintain and enforce high standards of conduct and should personally observe those standards, so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.

COMMENTARY: Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends on public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depend in turn on their acting without fear or favor.

Although judges should be independent, they must comply with the law and should comply with this Code. Adherence to this responsibility helps to maintain public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary. Conversely, violation of this Code diminishes public confidence in the judiciary and injures our system of government under law.

****

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in all Activities

(A) Respect for Law. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

****

Canon 3: A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially and diligently.

The duties of the judicial office take precedence over all other activities. The judge should perform those duties with respect for others, and should not engage in behavior that is harassing, abusive, prejudiced, or biased. The judge should adhere to the following standards:

****

3(A)(6) A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. A judge should require similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. The prohibition on public comment on the merits does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties, to explanations of court procedures, or to scholarly presentations made for purposes of legal education.

****

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities that are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office

A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. However, a judge should not participate in extrajudicial activities that detract from the dignity of the judge's office, interfere with the performance of the judge's official duties, reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, lead to frequent disqualification, or violate the limitations set forth below.

(A) Law-related Activities.

(1) Speaking, Writing, and Teaching. A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice.

*****

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

****

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office ....

****

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4 [including writing and speaking on law-related topics].

IV. Judicial Writing and Speaking on Legal Topics

Canon 4 encourages judges to write and speak on legal topics, subject to the caution that their activities should not "detract from the dignity of the...