By Joe Palazzolo, James V. Grimaldi and Coulter Jones
Congressional hearing follows reports in The Wall Street Journal on widespread financial conflicts; judge says judiciary can fix gaps on its own
Democrats and Republicans are “in total agreement” on the need for legislation that would require judges to adhere to the same financial disclosure requirements as Congress, Rep. Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) said at a hearing Tuesday.
The hearing came a day after a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including Mr. Issa, introduced a bill in both the House and Senate that would require the judiciary to accelerate public release of the disclosure forms by months and in some cases years. Currently, judges’ financial disclosures are filed annually by May of the following year.
Lawmakers scheduled the hearing in response to a Wall Street Journal investigation that found 131 federal judges violated federal law by presiding over cases involving companies in which they reported owning stock. In their comments to the Journal, some judges blamed court clerks. Others said their lists of companies to avoid had misspellings that foiled the conflict-screening software.
“The damage has been done,” said Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.), the subcommittee chairman. “Federal judges did not follow the law.”
Judge Jennifer Elrod, who chairs the ethics committee for the federal judiciary’s policy-making body, said the judiciary on its own could address the gaps revealed by the Journal’s reporting through improved technology and training.
She said the Judicial Conference would work toward full compliance with the law. “You have my word,” Judge Elrod said.
Judge Elrod declined several questions about specific judges mentioned in the Journal reports, and couldn’t say whether any judges have been reprimanded for failing to properly recuse from cases in which they reported a financial interest.
Nothing bars judges from owning stocks, but federal law since 1974 has prohibited judges from hearing cases that involve a party in which they, their spouses or their minor children have a “legal or equitable interest, however small.”
However, the law exempts investments in mutual or index funds. Lawmakers questioned whether judges should be barred from holding individual stocks.
“Holding mutual funds does simplify the process for judges,” said Judge Elrod, who added that she avoids individual stocks to make it easier for her to comply with her ethical obligations.
But she said banning ownership of individual stocks wouldn’t solve the problem of judges’ failing to recuse, because stocks represent just one category of financial interest that requires disqualification.
The hearing in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet is likely to inform court accountability and transparency measures under consideration in Congress.
House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) is working on legislation that contemplates sanctions for judges who commit recusal violations, and restricting judges from owning shares of individual companies, according to congressional aides.
House Democrats are seeking Republican support for the legislation.
The bipartisan legislation introduced Monday, which Mr. Nadler also supports, includes only transparency measures.
The bills, sponsored by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Rep. Deborah Ross (D., N.C.), would require judges to report their financial transactions over $1,000 within 45 days.
The legislation would bind federal judges to an existing law, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, that requires periodic transaction reports by the president, vice president, presidential-appointed administration officials, and members of Congress.
“I am predicting that we will act, and it is likely that we will act consistent with the STOCK Act,” said Mr. Issa, who is co-sponsoring the House bill along with Mr. Johnson, the subcommittee chairman, and others.