In December, I wrote a couple of misconduct grievance filed in opposition to Choose Stephen Vaden of the Courtroom of Worldwide Commerce. The grievance charged that the Columbia boycott violated the code of judicial ethics.
At present, the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council dismissed that grievance. Right here is the crux of the evaluation in regards to the boycott:
Besides to the extent prohibited by these laws and tips, judges have broad discretion to determine their very own screening and choice standards in appointing regulation clerks. This latitude permits judges to make distinctions amongst candidates based mostly on their very own determinations of the related standards or {qualifications}, together with the place the candidates had been educated. Some judges solely rent graduates of sure regulation faculties. Some tailor their preferences to the precise wants of their court docket or chambers—for instance, by on the lookout for candidates from regulation faculties with glorious writing or trial advocacy applications or robust core curricula in related topic areas. Relatedly, some judges solely take into account candidates with a GPA within the high 10 or 20 p.c of their law-school class (or another tutorial cutoff). Some require membership within the regulation evaluation or moot court docket group. Others prioritize candidates from regulation faculties of their state or circuit.
In the identical means, a choose could refuse to rent regulation clerks from a regulation college or college that has, within the choose’s view, didn’t foster vital elements of upper schooling like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech, and viewpoint nondiscrimination. Accordingly, the law-clerk hiring boycott is neither inconsistent with the integrity of the judicial workplace nor more likely to diminish public confidence within the judiciary.
That ought to have been apparent from the outset.
In the end, this saga attracts to a detailed. I’m grateful to my pals at First Liberty, in addition to Lisa Blatt and her colleagues at Williams & Connolly, for representing Choose Vaden.
Then once more, it’s wroth noting how the grievance was filed. The Seventh Circuit additionally contains this tidbit that has, till now, not been publicized:
The complainant is serving a sentence in a state jail after a jury discovered him responsible of arson, terrorism, and different crimes stemming from his function in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish homes of worship.
I stay troubled how the judicial ethics course of will be weaponized. This case was one other episode of lawfare in opposition to the judiciary.
