In an attempt to propagate a relatively new concept of judicial privilege, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2016 that it is no longer necessary to investigate past impeachable offenses of judges who simply retire before being convicted. Retirement not only exempts them from having past crimes investigated, it also entitles them to receive their full salaries (now "annuities") for the rest of their lives.
This ruling, which protects fellow "brothers or sisters of the robe" from being disciplined for past breaches of "good behavior" or worse, grew out of a complaint of judicial misconduct brought against U.S. District Judge Walter S. Smith, Jr. for stalking and making sexual advances in his chambers against a staff member of the court. The complaint was filed by attorney Ty Clevenger on behalf of a victim whose health was threatened, and who was driven to leave her deputy clerk position at the courthouse.
Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals penned the ruling based largely on the following argument:
From the title of the above Order, the Judicial Council recognized that the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002 had replaced the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 (as amended), which had been codifed into law as the former 28 U.S.C.
The authority that is cited in 91 F.3d 90 by the Fifth Circuit in 2016 is derived from a primary source, 10F.3d 99, in which Third Circuit Chief Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, in 1993, states in pertinent part:
Judge Sloviter begins by stating that the complaint of judicial misconduct is "not cognizable under [now obsolete] 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c)," then proceeds to say that [now obsolete] subsection 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c)(3)(b), from which she derives her authority, is based on what merely "has been reported to be the general practice of circuit chief judges."
This is among the shakiest of foundations upon which to build an argument that justifies exempting judges from being prosecuted for past crimes let alone rewarding them with lifetime annuities. All a miscreant judge need do is simply retire from the bench once they are exposed, but before being indicted.
Nevertheless, Judge Sloviter's opinion is what the Fifth Circuit relied upon when it ruled that Judge Walter Smith's past felonious conduct is exempt from being further investigated or prosecuted because of his retirement from the bench. Furthermore, because he was neither impeached nor forced to resign, Judge Smith remains entitled to an annuity for the remainder of his life, and he will never have to account for serious past acts of misconduct.
Thus, the Fifth Circuit's Judicial Council would have us accept its dictim as established law which, if not challenged, is expected to become increasingly accepted and universally defended by judges.
This dictim is manifestly unconstitutional, and the practice of exempting judges from prior offenses that would be considered felonies if committed by ordinary citizens is one that begs to be deliberated by Congress, whose duty it is to create laws that regulate the operation of the Judicial Branch. In the words of Ty Clevenger, "Congress: Wake up and pay attention!"
*Rule 20(b)1(B) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings states:
Undefined are "intervening events," which ordinarily are restricted to death, imprisonment, or other major life-altering events. Nowhere is simple retirement specified as an "intervening event."