Federal judges weigh need for new guidance after clerk accused of racist statements
(Image from Shutterstock.)
The federal judiciary is considering new ethical guidelines for law clerk hiring, according to a report released on Friday.
The U.S. Judicial Conference, in a report from its March 12 meeting, said it asked its Committee on Codes of Conduct to evaluate whether additional guidance is needed on the ethical duties of judges when hiring their law clerks.
The Judicial Conference also referred to its Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability the question of whether rule-based modifications were needed because of potential incompatibility with policies governing judicial misconduct cases.
According to Reuters, which has coverage, the need for new guidance arose after two judges hired a clerk who was accused of racist conduct. That clerk, Crystal Clanton, later went on to a clerkship with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
In 2022, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability said a special committee should be appointed to consider misconduct allegations against the two judges: U.S. Circuit Judge William Pryor, who is chief judge of the 11th Circuit at Atlanta, and U.S. District Judge Corey Maze of the Northern District of Alabama.
Past news coverage had accused Clanton of sending a text message to a colleague at a conservative student group, Turning Point USA, that said she hates Black people.
The judges had said they were aware of the allegations against Clanton but they had information that the claim was false. A leader at Turning Point USA vouched for Clanton and said a fired employee had created fake text messages to be used against co-workers.
The judicial council of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at New York tossed misconduct complaints against the judges in January 2022.
The 2nd Circuit declined to revisit its initial decision in November 2023. According to Reuters, Pryor and Maze argued that a rule allowing the national conduct committee to order circuit changes conflicted with the text of the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.
