Congress asked to weigh impeaching ex-judge for alleged sexual misconduct
Joshua M. Kindred at his Senate confirmation hearing. (Photo from the Senate Judiciary Committee)
Federal judiciary leaders have asked Congress to consider impeaching a federal judge in Alaska who resigned this summer after an investigation found he created a hostile work environment in his chambers and engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with a former law clerk, a spokesperson for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) confirmed Thursday.
U.S. District Judge Joshua M. Kindred, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, gave up his lifetime appointment in July. The report about his conduct detailed two separate sexual encounters in October 2022 between Kindred and the former law clerk shortly after she began working as a federal prosecutor. It says they exchanged nearly 300 pages of text messages over an 11-month period.
The Washington Post could not reach Kindred for comment Thursday or learn whether he has an attorney representing him.
Only 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House since 1804, according to data from the Federal Judicial Center. About half of those impeached were then convicted by the Senate.
Most recently, G. Thomas Porteous was impeached on charges of accepting bribes and making false statements and removed from his seat in the Eastern District of Louisiana in 2010. Samuel B. Kent of the Southern District of Texas was impeached on charges of sexual assault in 2009. He resigned, and the Senate dismissed the impeachment.
Judge Alex Kozinski of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit was not referred for impeachment proceedings after he retired in 2017 amid allegations of workplace sexual misconduct. Since he left the bench, leaders of the federal judiciary have sought to encourage reporting and eliminate barriers to holding court officials accountable.
But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and others have strongly resisted calls from advocates and members of Congress who have backed legislation to try to impose independent oversight and extend anti-discrimination protections to the judiciary’s more than 30,000 employees nationwide. A lawmaker who has led those efforts praised the Judicial Conference of the United States on Thursday for its actions regarding Kindred.
“I am glad that the Judicial Conference is taking these allegations seriously by certifying this matter to the House for consideration of impeachment,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “Unwanted, offensive, and abusive sexual conduct and harassment have no place in America, and we must ensure that our federal court system is held to the same standard as every other workplace.”
The report by the 9th Circuit Judicial Council accuses Kindred of discussing his divorce, dating life, sex life and romantic preferences with his law clerks, and also talking about their boyfriends and dating lives, among other topics. Kindred encouraged his law clerks to rate people based on their sexual desirability, the report said, and belittled or ostracized clerks who tried to talk to him about his inappropriate behavior.
The 9th Circuit Judicial Council asked Kindred to resign after concluding that he violated the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The council also referred the matter to the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body of the U.S. Courts.
Criminal defense attorney Olivia Warren, who has testified before Congress about sexual harassment she experienced as a law clerk, said this summer that it took far too long for judiciary leaders to take action against Kindred. She noted that he continued to work as a judge for more than a year after Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia became aware of the misconduct allegations against him.
Murguia, who initiated the investigation into Kindred, said in a statement accompanying the report that the 9th Circuit takes complaints of misconduct seriously and that federal judges must be held “to the highest standards of integrity and impartiality.”
Even though Kindred is no longer a judge, legal ethics experts said it was critical for the Judicial Conference to send a message by taking this serious next step of referring him to the House for impeachment.
“It matters to the public, and it matters as a pronouncement of unacceptable behavior on the part of judges,” said Stephen Gillers, a judicial ethics expert at New York University Law School. “It’s the equivalent of saying, ‘We have no tolerance for this kind of behavior.’ ”
Rep. Norma J. Torres (D-Calif.), who also has worked alongside to address sexual harassment and workplace misconduct concerns in the judiciary, called the impeachment referral “a welcome demonstration that despite the separation of powers and the full independence of the Courts, our government remains steadfast in executing the law and maintaining the highest ethical standards of conduct within the American Judicial system.”
Now that the Judicial Conference has acted, the House Judiciary Committee must decide whether to refer the matter to the full House for an impeachment vote. If a majority of lawmakers vote to impeach, the case would move to the Senate for a trial and require a two-thirds vote to convict. “This should not be partisan,” Gillers said. “There’s no gain for the Democrats, and there’s actually harm to Republicans if they impede it.”
A spokesman for Hank Johnson said the lawmaker expects to reintroduce the Judicial Accountability Act next week. The bill, originally introduced in July 2021, provides several safeguards for courthouse employees, including the creation of a commission to oversee a program to prevent workplace misconduct and an office to oversee confidential reporting systems regarding such misconduct.
Deeva V. Shah, an attorney who has represented federal courts employees on matters involving alleged workplace misconduct, said a potential impeachment proceeding could bring transparency to the issue.
“I also hope that this proceeding can open doors to more conversations, and even congressional action, regarding the insufficiency of protections for law clerks and staff who face and report misconduct—at great personal risk—as employees of the federal judiciary,” Shah said.
