Date of Award

Fall 2024

Project Type

Thesis

Program or Major

Justice Studies

Degree Name

Master of Arts

First Advisor

Susan Siggelakis

Second Advisor

Kirk Trombley

Third Advisor

Nicholas Smith

Abstract

Judicial ethics, grounded in principles of impartiality and integrity, face threats when public perceptions are compromised by instances of misconduct and the actions of those who fail to adhere to these core standards. Since 1980, the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act has provided a mechanism for reporting and addressing allegations of misconduct that do not reach the level of impeachment. This process offers complainants a means to hold judges accountable for their actions and often serves as a forum for addressing grievances that might otherwise go unheard. While the federal judiciary is typically insulated from external pressures due to lifetime appointments and strict procedural safeguards, it can still face heightened scrutiny when allegations of misconduct arise, especially during periods of social disruption. This thesis explores the degree of this insulation by analyzing 27 data tables released by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AO) and asks: How insulated is the federal judiciary from the impacts of social turmoil in the United States? Notably, the federal judiciary experienced increased racial or ethnic misconduct allegations following the Black Lives Matter movement, yet appeared shielded from broader societal issues brought upon by the Me Too movement and the COVID-19 pandemic. This outcome is explained by active attempts to reassess and address federal judiciary policies and procedures in response to the Me Too movement and the COVID-19 pandemic, while not engaging as directly with issues raised by the Black Lives Matter movement.

Download

Share

COinS