A Tale of Two Judicial Discipline Cases — Unwritten Law

Listen in the Podli app 🎧

Follow your favourite podcasts, listen offline and in the car with CarPlay and Android Auto, and always pick up where you left off. Free to try.

Why did one federal judge receive only a reprimand after engaging in sexual activities in her chambers, while Federal Judge Pauline Newman remains sidelined after more than three years — with no judicial review of her suspension, despite no findings of misconduct and passing 3 mental fitness tests from 3 different doctors?

In this episode of Unwritten Law, Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione discuss a recent judicial misconduct case that has prompted new scrutiny of the federal judiciary's internal disciplinary process.

The discussion explores:

A federal judge who received a private reprimand after misconduct findings
Why the judge was allowed to continue hearing cases
How that outcome compares to Judge Pauline Newman's ongoing suspension
The role of judicial councils in disciplining federal judges
Concerns about transparency, accountability, and consistency
Why legal commentators across the ideological spectrum have questioned the result

Mark and John also examine what these cases reveal about administrative processes within the judiciary and whether reforms may be needed to restore public confidence.