CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The United States’ federal judges officially came out Tuesday against a Senate bill that would prohibit private organizations from funding judicial education. Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., had introduced a measure prohibiting private funding in July. They acted in response to a study by the D.C.-based Community Rights Counsel and an article in The Washington Post this summer revealing that conservative foundations had been paying federal judges’ expenses to attend pricey educational seminars, many in exclusive resort areas. Ralph Winter Jr., chairman of the executive committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, said at a press conference on Sept. 19 that the conference had voted to oppose the ban on private funding. Winter, chief judge of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, called the prohibition “enormously broad” and “an interference in the marketplace of ideas.” Under the Kerry-Feingold bill, the Federal Judicial Center would vet judges’ participation in seminars, based on the programs’ content and sponsorship. If the FJC approved of a trip, the judges’ expenses would be paid by a new $2 million annual appropriation. “This would alter the role of the FJC, which now does good work, and turn it into a censor,” said Winter. Winter said the judicial leadership will “continue to look at” the broader issue of whether such travel by sitting judges creates a conflict of interest. “My colleagues on the conference and I are well aware that there’s public concern over these things,” Winter said. “We gave this careful consideration.” Douglas Kendall, head of the Community Rights Counsel, says, “I think the Judicial Conference missed an opportunity to ban corporate-funded junkets for judges.” In a statement, Kerry said, “We regret that the conference once again decided to overlook this issue. I think all of us would agree that we risk a loss of faith in the judicial system if more and more Americans believe that money is deciding who has access to our federal judges to argue for their legal agenda, and that is clearly not in the best interests of our democracy or the courts.”

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.