Some notable cases of judicial misconduct in Seattle, Oregon, New York City, and elsewhere have approached or crossed the threshold of impeachable offenses.
In Seattle, one of the most publicized issues involved judicial oversight of the Seattle Police Department. While not directly an impeachable offense, the case underscores systemic issues that can lead to misconduct. A federal judge in 2023 decided to end most judicial oversight of the Seattle Police Department, which had been under a consent decree due to allegations of excessive force and racial bias. This decision raised concerns about the accountability of judicial oversight and whether the judge's decision to lift oversight prematurely could be seen as neglecting judicial duty to ensure public safety and rights protection. Though not an impeachable offense in itself, such actions can contribute to broader narratives of judicial impropriety in managing significant public responsibilities.
In 2024, the Seattle City Attorney's Office sought to remove Judge Pooja Vaddadi from hearing criminal misdemeanor cases due to what they perceived as biased rulings. This action was based on affidavits of prejudice filed by the office, suggesting that her judicial decisions were not impartial. While this does not directly lead to impeachment, it raises concerns about judicial bias, which, if severe, could be grounds for an impeachable offense like "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" if it constitutes a pattern of gross misconduct.
Next door In Oregon, the case of federal agents patrolling Portland in 2020 during protests highlighted judicial decisions that touched on civil liberties. Judge Michael W. Mosman's ruling against Oregon's attempt to restrict federal agents' actions did not directly involve impeachable conduct but sparked a debate on judicial roles in protecting constitutional rights. The decision to not grant a temporary restraining order against federal agents' activities was seen by some as potentially enabling unconstitutional actions, although it was framed legally around the issue of standing rather than direct misconduct.
New York has had more explicit cases of judicial scandal. In 2019, Judge Sylvia Ash of Brooklyn Supreme Court was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting text messages and making false statements during a federal investigation into a nonprofit financial institution where she served as a board chair. This incident directly aligns with what could be considered "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under the Constitution's impeachment clause, as it involves the obstruction of justice, a serious federal offense.
Another significant case was in 2021 when a New York state judge was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal agents. Such convictions for criminal acts clearly meet the threshold for impeachment considerations, as they breach the "good behavior" standard set for federal judges.Next door In Oregon, the case of federal agents patrolling Portland in 2020 during protests highlighted judicial decisions that touched on civil liberties. Judge Michael W. Mosman's ruling against Oregon's attempt to restrict federal agents' actions did not directly involve impeachable conduct but sparked a debate on judicial roles in protecting constitutional rights. The decision to not grant a temporary restraining order against federal agents' activities was seen by some as potentially enabling unconstitutional actions, although it was framed legally around the issue of standing rather than direct misconduct.
In 2020, during the Portland protests, Judge Mosman was involved in a significant case where Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum sought to limit federal law enforcement tactics. Judge Mosman dismissed the state's request for a temporary restraining order, focusing on the issue of standing rather than the content of the actions. While this decision was controversial and did not involve direct misconduct, it highlights the complex role judges play in balancing state and federal powers, which can be contentious and lead to public scrutiny.
New York has had more explicit cases of judicial scandal. In 2019, Judge Sylvia Ash of Brooklyn Supreme Court was charged with obstruction of justice for allegedly deleting text messages and making false statements during a federal investigation into a nonprofit financial institution where she served as a board chair. This incident directly aligns with what could be considered "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" under the Constitution's impeachment clause, as it involves the obstruction of justice, a serious federal offense.
In 2019, Judge Ash, serving on the Brooklyn Supreme Court, was charged with one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice and two counts of obstruction of justice related to her actions as the chair of the board for the Municipal Credit Union. She allegedly deleted text messages and made false statements during an investigation into the institution's practices. This case directly aligns with potential impeachable offenses as it involves criminal acts like obstruction of justice.
While not directly involved in an impeachable scandal, Judge Merchan has been at the center of high-profile cases, including Donald Trump's hush-money case in 2023. Trump's complaints about Merchan's impartiality, due to his daughter's political affiliations, led to discussions about judicial ethics and potential conflicts of interest, though no formal misconduct was found by judicial ethics panels.
In early 2025, Judge Engelmayer was embroiled in controversy when he issued a preliminary injunction blocking Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing Treasury Department records. Musk's public outcry and call for Engelmayer's impeachment over this ruling illustrate how judicial decisions can lead to allegations of misconduct, although this case largely reflects political disagreement rather than legal wrongdoing.
The recent legal actions against New York City's Mayor Eric Adams in 2024 for bribery and campaign finance offenses, adjudicated by U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho, highlight the proximity judges have to political corruption. While the judge's involvement in such cases does not necessarily implicate him in scandal, it underscores the delicate balance judges must maintain to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, which could lead to public calls for impeachment if not handled with utmost integrity.
Nationally, there have been instances where judicial misconduct has led to or could lead to impeachment. For example, the historical case of Judge Samuel B. Kent, who was impeached in 2009 for sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and making false statements, shows how severe misconduct can lead to the rare act of impeachment. Similarly, Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. was impeached in 2010 for bribery and false statements, setting a precedent for how the judiciary must be held accountable.
Impeached in 2009 for sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. Judge Samuel B. Kent (Texas) resigned before his Senate trial, but his case is a textbook example of judicial misconduct leading to impeachment.
Judge G. Thomas Porteous Jr. (Louisiana) was impeached in 2010 for bribery, false statements, and other ethical violations. The Senate convicted him on four articles of impeachment, leading to his removal from office.
In 1936, Judge Halsted L. Ritter (Florida) was impeached for various charges, including bribery and improper conduct. His case marked one of the few instances where the Senate voted to remove a judge for non-criminal behavior, focusing on the "good behavior" clause.
These cases illustrate how judicial misconduct can range from direct criminal acts to more nuanced issues of judicial ethics, impartiality, and public preception of fairness. While not all these instances resulted in impeachment, they all contributed to discussions about what constitutes offenses among federal judges, highlighting the gravity and rarity of such actions withing the U.S. judicial system.
Beyond these high-profile cases, there are systemic issues like those uncovered by Reuters in 2020, which found that thousands of judges across the U.S. had escaped public accountability for various misdeeds. These included instances of judges engaging in criminal behavior, abuse of judicial power, or failing to uphold judicial ethics, which, while not leading to impeachment, illustrate the broader landscape of judicial misconduct that could, in severe cases, be deemed impeachable.
Impeachment of federal judges is rare, reflecting both the high standard for such actions and the protective nature of lifetime tenure. However, when judges engage in criminal behavior, abuse their power, or significantly fail in their judicial duties, the mechanism of impeachment stands as a constitutional check on judicial authority. The cases from Seattle, Oregon, New York City, and other locales illustrate a spectrum of judicial behavior, from questionable decisions that impact public trust to outright criminal conduct that clearly merits impeachment considerations.
The integrity of the judiciary hinges on public trust, which can be severely compromised by scandals. These instances serve as reminders of the importance of judicial accountability, the necessity of upholding "good behavior," and the critical role of the impeachment process in maintaining the balance of powers within the American government. As public scrutiny increases, ensuring that judges adhere to the highest ethical standards not only preserves judicial independence but also ensures that the judiciary remains a beacon of justice and fairness in society.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer
