In a revealing look into the federal judiciary's internal workings, the year 2025 saw a mere two complaints filed by law clerks against judges under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (JCDA). This shockingly low number starkly contrasts with the 106 clerks who reported actionable mistreatment in the judiciary’s own 2023 workplace conduct survey, suggesting a deeply flawed complaint process rather than a lack of misconduct.

The JCDA is ostensibly the only legal avenue for disciplining federal judges, who are otherwise protected from dismissal due to their life tenure and exempt from the anti-discrimination laws they adjudicate. Under the JCDA, allegations can range from prejudicial conduct to disabilities that impair judicial duties. Yet, despite the gravity and potential consequences of such misconduct, the judiciary appears to actively dissuade clerks from filing complaints, with a strong inclination to shield judges from repercussions.

Many clerks report misconduct informally to employee dispute resolution (EDR) coordinators or directors of workplace relations, who often discourage formal complaints. The lack of legal protection against retaliation, coupled with the perceived risks to their careers and reputations, leaves many clerks hesitant to escalate their grievances.

The cases in 2025 involved Maryland Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby and former Minnesota bankruptcy judge Kesha Tanabe. While these complaints were meant to bring misconduct to light, the pressure from judiciary officials led to the withdrawal of the complaint against Tanabe, highlighting significant systemic issues.

The judiciary's reluctance to address these problems is further compounded by its opaque handling of these processes. Clerks are often redirected from JCDA complaints to the less effective EDR process, where no disciplinary actions against judges are required to be disclosed, minimizing transparency and accountability.

Moreover, the judiciary has not conducted another workplace conduct survey since 2023, nor has it investigated the 106 judges implicated in the previous survey. Proposed reforms like the Judiciary Accountability Act, which would mandate annual surveys and public disclosure of outcomes, have seen little progress.

This ongoing situation raises urgent questions about the integrity of the federal judiciary and the effectiveness of its self-policing claims. Without substantial reform and genuine accountability mechanisms, the judiciary risks perpetuating an environment where misconduct can thrive unchecked, undermining public trust in its role as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice.