Gregory Sisk, a professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law, spoke with KARE 11 about the Department of Justice’s misconduct complaint against seven Minnesota federal judges following comments they made to The New York Times about Operation Metro Surge. Sisk discussed judicial ethics rules and questioned whether the conduct cited in the complaint supports the DOJ’s allegations.
From the story:
Two political science experts KARE 11 spoke with said the judges were within their rights to talk to the press.
“The ethics rules for judges makes plain that they’re allowed to speak on matters of public concern to help educate the public about the way the judicial system works and to point out problems in the system," said Gregory Sisk, a University of St. Thomas School of Law professor.
Sisk said the DOJ said the judges talked about pending cases, but he said the department’s complaint doesn’t address specific ethics violations.
“In terms of the complaint itself, what I found to be unusual about it is that it wasn’t particularly remarkable in the things that it pointed out. It pointed out the things that the judges said, but none of those were about pending matters on the merits before them, which is what the Department of Justice said was the violation here. So their own factual assertions don’t seem to line up with their legal argument that the judges engaged in unethical behavior,” Sisk said.
Sisk said he doesn’t remember a past situation with previous administrations where the DOJ has aggressively pushed back against federal judges doing their job. He said every presidential administration criticizes judicial rulings they don’t like, but he said what makes the Trump administration different is the degree to which they personalize it.
“I think unfortunately one of the key points is this is another pattern of activity by the Department of Justice to try to intimidate judges to bully those who do not support the administration’s position,” Sisk said.
