An investigation found that 131 federal judges violated US law by overseeing cases involving companies in which they or their family held direct stock, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 cases across the nation in which they held financial interest since 2010, the investigation revealed.
What’s more, when the judges participated in these cases, roughly two-thirds of their rulings ended up being in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
While there are no laws that prohibit judges from owning stocks, the federal jurists’ code of conduct demands judges recuse themselves in the event that they hold any semblance of financial interest in a case – or, the ‘ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small,’ as the set of regulations defines it.
The cases in question were all held between the years 2010 and 2020 – and of the two-thirds of federal judges who disclosed individual stock holdings, roughly a fifth of them presided over at least one case that involved their stock, the investigation showed.
An investigation found that 131 federal judges violated US law by overseeing cases involving companies in which they or their family held direct stock, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The judges failed to recuse themselves from 685 cases across the nation in which they held financial interest since 2010, the investigation revealed.
What’s more, when the judges participated in these cases, roughly two-thirds of their rulings ended up being in favor of their or their family’s financial interests.
While there are no laws that prohibit judges from owning stocks, the federal jurists’ code of conduct demands judges recuse themselves in the event that they hold any semblance of financial interest in a case – or, the ‘ownership of a legal or equitable interest, however small,’ as the set of regulations defines it.
The cases in question were all held between the years 2010 and 2020 – and of the two-thirds of federal judges who disclosed individual stock holdings, roughly a fifth of them presided over at least one case that involved their stock, the investigation showed.
The unit, however, had previously informed the court at the outset of the case that it was a subsidiary of Exxon, so that Ramos – who was appointed by Barack Obama -could ‘evaluate possible disqualification or recusal,’ court filings indicated.
In Colorado, Judge Lewis Babcock oversaw particularly troubling proceedings involving a Comcast Corp. subsidiary, in which he ruled in the telecommunications company’s favor after several of their employees were accused of harassing a family in Colorado.
In the case, a couple accused the telephone service company’s employees of threatening them, intimidating their 10-year-old daughter, and physically injuring their dog.
The pair asked Babcock to issue a judicial order barring the company from accessing their property to install fiber-optic cables.
Babcock – who was appointed by Ronald Reagan – ruled that the couple had ‘continually blocked Comcast’s access to the easement,’ and sent the case back to state court, which was what Comcast wanted.
All the while, the judge or his family reportedly held between $15,001 and $50,000 in Comcast stock, the report revealed.
‘I dropped the ball,’ Babcock attested when asked about his conflict of interest in the case.
The jurist went on to blame the infraction on internal administrative mishaps, and thanked the Journal for ‘helping me stay on my toes the way I’m supposed to.’
Meanwhile, at an Ohio-based appeals court, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons authored an opinion that favored Ford Motor Co. in one particular court proceeding in 2014 – while her husband, Bill Gibbons, owned stock in the automaker.
Prior to Gibbons’ ruling, her husband’s financial advisor promptly purchased even more Ford stock, for his retirement account.
Gibbons – appointed by George W. Bush – claimed she had mistakenly assumed that a holding in her husband’s retirement account did not constitute a conflict of interest, and therefore require her recusal.
‘I regret my misunderstanding, but I assure you it was an honest one,’ Gibbons attested.
