Congress Needs to Revisit Accountability for Federal Judges

Federal judges may be the class of Americans whose behaviour is most insulated from scrutiny, but their moral and cognitive fitness to exercise their judicial duties must be meaningfully reviewable.

The argument: Two qualitatively different cases involving federal judges with lifetime tenure have laid bare the inadequacies of the mechanisms that hold judges accountable.

WHY IT MATTERS

Article III of the US Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” They can only be removed from office through impeachment, a prerogative wholly belonging to Congress. Given their lifetime tenure, the responsibility entrusted to these judges is immense. Public confidence is integral to judicial legitimacy, and judicial legitimacy is integral to the rule of law. So, the fitness of judges is a core concern for the health of the American Republic.

Two cases that have unfolded over the last few years have laid bare the deficiencies of the system that Congress needs to revisit. In September 2023, Judge Pauline Newman, who sits on a specialized appellate court, was the subject of a complaint by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore. The Chief Judge alleged that the 95-year-old Judge Newman was no longer able to bear the duties of a federal appellate judge despite evidence to the contrary. Through a series of administrative—rather than Congressional—maneuvers, Chief Judge Moore effectively deprived Judge Newman of her office “during good behaviour.”