arose — have been at the center of a recent national debate . Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito have faced calls to recuse themselves from cases due to their wives ’ political activities . Chief Justice John Roberts ’ wife has a high-powered job as a headhunter for law firms with Supreme Court practices .
Last year , ProPublica exposed how Thomas and Alito took trips funded by billionaires but failed to properly disclose them . In 2021 , The Wall Street Journal found at least 131 judges broke the law by hearing cases in which they had a financial interest . And in 2020 , Reuters identified thousands of judges who broke the law but remained on the bench .
A ProPublica analysis found a lack of transparency regarding conflicts plagues federal and state courts where loose rules , inconsistent enforcement and creative interpretations of guidelines routinely allow judges to withhold potential conflicts from the parties before them .
In an examination of more than 1,200 federal judges and state supreme court justices , ProPublica , in partnership with student journalists at Boston University , found dozens of judges , including both Republican and Democratic appointees , who chose not to recuse when facing potential appearances of impropriety involving familial financial connections . Ethics experts say that the judges ’ interpretation of the rules may often lie within the letter of the law , but at the expense of its spirit .
In Florida , a state Supreme Court justice presided over a gambling case in which a Native American tribe sought to protect billions in betting revenue . During the proceedings , the tribe made an unusually large campaign contribution to the justice ’ s wife , a state legislator . The judge later helped form a court majority that struck down the constitutional challenge , protecting the tribe ’ s business .
In Minnesota , a federal judge heard an antitrust case against a corporation that was a major client of the public relations firm owned by his wife . He went on to dismiss the case , in the
56 x The Trial Lawyer corporation ’ s favor . And in both Ohio and North Carolina , state supreme court justices rejected calls from ethics watchdogs to recuse themselves from multiple cases involving a parent who is a powerful state politician .
Amid cratering confidence in the impartiality of both the federal and state judicial systems , experts worry that such failures to police conflicts of interest only further erode public confidence .
“ We ignore it at our own peril ,” said Robert Westley , professor of legal ethics and professional responsibility at Tulane University . “ I really believe the entire system is at stake if we don ’ t get this right .”
THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE
Federal law requires judges to recuse themselves from any case in which a close relative has an interest in the result , or when the judge ’ s “ impartiality might reasonably be questioned .”
While some judges go to great lengths to disclose potential conflicts and recuse scrupulously from those cases , the guidelines are ambiguous and the adherence is haphazard , according to experts .
In most cases , judges oversee their own decisions to recuse , raising concerns about the lack of checks and balances on judges ’ judgment . The challenges posed by familial conflicts could be mitigated with more judicial transparency , experts say .
The American Bar Association guides judges to disclose any information potentially relevant to attorneys who might consider a motion for disqualification . But the guidance has not been codified by all states — or the federal judiciary . Without it , judges are under no obligation to inform a party appearing before them when a judge ’ s family member may be working on behalf of the party ’ s opposition .
Federal laws do require judges to report their spouses ’ assets and income each year , but they generally don ’ t require judges to disclose their spouses ’ clients . Calls from watchdogs in 2022 to close the client loophole failed to get traction in Congress . Making matters worse , U . S . courts have failed to comply with federal law in promptly posting disclosures online .
More than a dozen states don ’ t require judges to post any details at all about their family members ’ income , and a majority of states don ’ t make disclosures easily available online , according to Fix the Court , a nonprofit advocating for more transparency and accountability in U . S . courts .
“ People are as honest as their circumstances permit ,” Westley said . “ When circumstances allow them to be dishonest without being discovered , many people will choose to do that .
“ The system is not working . But I think it can work when there is oversight .”
THE CONUNDRUM OF SUCCESSFUL COUPLES
Familial conflict-of-interest decisions get more complicated when the spouse of a judge is a high-ranking state official , as is the case with Florida Supreme Court Justice Charles Canady and his wife , Republican state Rep . Jennifer Canady . Charles Canady was appointed to the state ’ s top court in 2008 by former Republican Gov . Charlie Crist ; Jennifer Canady won her first legislative race in 2022 .
In December , Charles Canady ’ s court received a legal brief from the Seminole Tribe of Florida , asking the sevenmember body to reject a constitutional challenge to its exclusive sports betting deal with the state , worth billions . The tribe was not a party to the case but stood to benefit .
Five days later , the tribe then cut a $ 10,000 campaign check to Jennifer Canady ’ s political action committee . Of the more than 100 donations the Seminoles made to Florida legislators in 2023 , a handful matched the size of but none were larger than Canady ’ s .