0

Every now and then one hears of some corrupt judge being removed for one reason or the other. I have participated in litigation where one of the participating judges (the first one) was jailed and barred from practicing law for life (my contribution to his demise was <1%).

Rather than waiting for these judges' infractions to accumulate and then explode in a scandal, what are soft, legal ways to remove a judge? For instance, you might see bias and continuous favoring of one party (late filing OK, faulty filing OK, etc.).

If I remember correctly, there is something (at least in US federal laws) like you do not need to prove impropriety, it is enough to have an impression of impropriety by a judge.

What are the laws that govern recusal/removal of a judge in State and Federal cases?

Improve this question
8
  • 5
    Terminology: recusal is when a judge voluntarily decides that they shouldn't oversee a case, removal is when some authority takes them off the case. Commented Nov 19 at 17:39
  • @Barmar I understand, but in either case my question is how to make them go away, one way or the other Commented Nov 20 at 3:18
  • 3
    But are you asking how to get them permanently fired, or just removed from a specific case, e.g. because of a conflict of interest? Commented Nov 20 at 16:14
  • @Barmar How to remove them from a specific case. If it gets past that point scandal may ensue and then of course anything goes. Commented Nov 22 at 17:39
  • 1
    Terminology: It's recusal if a judge says "I can not handle this case", dismissal/disqualification if another judge says "You can't handle the case", and removal (from the bench) when higher judges say "You are no longer a judge!" (though that also can happen through impeachment). Commented Nov 23 at 9:52

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1

appeal for disqualification in the federal courts

If the judge should have recused themselves for a real and reasonable interest in the case or any other indication of non-impartiality, a party has to file a request for recusal of that very judge. That stems from the rule that "Any [...] judge [...] shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned" (28 U.S.C. § 455(a)). If that is denied, the filing party can file an appeal of that decision to the next higher court to request that the case be sent to redress and remand (by disqualifying the judge) and the case be handled by a different judge. The mere appearance of non-impartiality of the judiciary is what is to be avoided, so those cases are handled very carefully - and it is misconduct if a judge does not do so on their own. In fact, the proceeding of the motion for dismissal needs to be handled by a different judge in the first place under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 144; Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3.C(1)(a).

For a rather public humiliating rundown of such a case: After a public statement by Judge Jackson against Microsoft in the case he presided over, he was dismissed from the case for apparent non-impartiality and his verdict stricken.

Similar rules exist in all state jurisdictions, as a substantially identical passage is in the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct (esp. Cannon 2.3 in the 2020 version), and most states adapted those for adoption (or copied another state's "homework"):

In varying forms, all fifty states have adopted codes of judicial conduct modeled on the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct. - p.14

Judge no more!

If a judge is repeatedly forced to recuse themselves or be dismissed from cases and amasses other complaints under 28 U.S. Code § 351, this can lead to dismissal from the bench. For federal judges, that's through impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate, which is very rare.

For state-level judges, there are typically Judicial Tenure Commissions that gather grievances, build a case, and then have the state supreme courts de-judge the guilty, such as In re Theresa M. Brennan, Docket No. 157930, Filed June 28, 2019 from Michigan.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you, I was not getting what I was looking for, so I rolled up my sleaves and was about to answer my own question, but you did it for me. Commented Nov 25 at 0:24
1

By petition of Parliament to the Governor(-General)

Judges serve until they resign or their mandatory retirement age. This varies by jurisdiction, but if you think “early 70s”, you won’t be wrong.

Federal and state constitutions vary in their details, but in essence they require both Houses of Parliament (except Queensland, because they only have one), to request the Governor or Governor-General respectively to terminate the judge’s appointment. The process is deliberately difficult to avoid political interference with the judiciary.

Each jurisdiction does have a Judicial Complaints Office which investigates and publicly reports on complaints against the courts, including judicial officers. While adverse findings have no legal force, they are embarrassing and can lead to a judge “mending their ways” or resigning.

Recusal is different

That’s where the judge removes themselves from the case because they are conflicted or there is an apprehension of bias. This is a decision the individual judge makes on each case as appropriate, either on their own initiative, or because one of the parties raises it.

Judges are not automatically removed if they are charged or convicted of a crime. By convention, they will stand down on til the matter is resolved, and resign if convicted. If they don’t, this is one of the circumstances that Parliament will take action on.

Improve this answer
1
  • @ Dale M yes of course, my question is more how to softly make the judge recuse himself or how to softly make him go away, for a reason in either case. What you describe would be paralleled with the US Supreme Court justices, not necessarily the lower court justices. Commented Nov 20 at 3:22

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.