7th Circuit Drops Judicial Complaint Against Judge Vaden for Columbia Clerk Boycott
The Judicial Council of the Seventh Circuit dropped a misconduct complaint against Court of International Trade Judge Stephen Vaden on April 8 concerning a letter Vaden signed pledging not to hire any law clerks from Columbia Law School due to the university's response to student protests of Israel. The judicial council said Vaden did not violate Rule 4(a) of the Judicial-Conduct Rules.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Following the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, students at Columbia organized massive protests of the Israeli military action in Gaza. Vaden, along with 12 other federal judges, issued a letter announcing a hiring boycott from Columbia in response to the university's "shortcomings" in addressing the "campus unrest, including the administration’s failure to enforce university rules concerning threats against members of the university community and vandalism and misuse of campus buildings and public spaces."
In response, an unnamed complainant filed a misconduct complaint at the trade court due to Vaden's signature of the letter. The judicial council noted that the complainant is currently serving a state prison sentence after being found guilty of arson, terrorism and other crimes relating to "his role in firebombing and vandalizing Jewish houses of worship."
CIT Chief Judge Mark Barnett first reviewed the complaint, later writing to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts requesting that the complaint be transferred to another judicial council. Barnett cited the "small size of his court," and the "possibility of multiple disqualifications and internal tensions within the court" as reasons for the transfer. The case was ultimately transferred to the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council.
At the circuit court, the matter was referred to a three-judge special committee made of Judges Diane Sykes, Amy St. Eve and Manish Shah. The judges unanimously recommended dismissing the matter. The case was then referred to the entire judicial council, which agreed and dismissed the complaint.
The complainant made five claims against Vaden's participation in the boycott, three of which the judicial council dropped as frivolous and unsupported. These claims alleged that Vaden used his office "to obtain special treatment for friends"; engaged in discrimination based on race, religion and national origin; and engaged in "abusive behavior" by treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees or others in a "demonstrably egregious and hostile manner."
No facts support any of the allegations, the judicial council said. "Neither the hiring boycott nor the Columbia letter supports the complainant’s assertion that Judge Vaden engages in abusive or discriminatory conduct or uses his office to obtain favors for friends." The complaint also suggested that the judges conspired with foreign governments -- a claim the court dismissed as "frivolous."
Two of the remaining claims, which alleged that the judge engaged in partisan or political activity and acted in a way to diminish public confidence in the federal courts, drew greater discussion, though ultimately also were dismissed.
Regarding the claim of the judge's supposed partisan political activity, the judicial council said the "hiring boycott and the Columbia letter do not cross into impermissible political territory" barred by judicial ethical rules. While the issues "underlying and surrounding the Columbia protests have been politicized," the judges' letter focused on the unviersity's response to the protests and not on the "war in Gaza or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," the council said.
The council then assessed whether the law-clerk hiring boycott or the letter itself were likely to cause a "substantial and widespread lowering of public confidence in the courts among reasonable people." The council held that judges have wide discretion in deciding which law clerks to hire. "This latitude permits judges to make distinctions among applicants based on their own determinations of the relevant criteria or qualifications, including where the applicants were educated," the decision said.
As a result, Vaden is allowed to not pick clerks from Columbia due to its supposed failure to "foster important aspects of higher eduction like civility in discourse" in the same way that judges only select clerks from certain elite law schools, the council said.
Regarding the letter itself, the council found "no conflict between the Columbia letter and any" judicial conduct norms. While the letter uses "strong language," it's "not inflammatory when measured against the objective standards" of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. The letter is within the bounds of "permissible writing on law-related -- or at least law-adjacent -- subjects," the council said.