"Some judges just don't want that known.”

     One of the remarkable things CRC discovered in reviewing judges' financial disclosure forms was that large numbers of judges were violating federal disclosure laws by failing to disclose seminar gifts altogether or omitting required information.

     Comparing what the judges reported to lists obtained from the hosts of these junkets, CRC discovered that one in nine junketing judges did not report corporate-funded junkets at all, despite clear federal law requiring them to do so. This non-disclosure is all the more remarkable because, after these junkets became front-page news in mid-1998, the judiciary sent an individual memorandum to every federal judge reminding judges of their obligation under federal law to disclose these trips. This triggered a response from a handful of judges, but most (one of every nine judges attending a seminar) still did not disclose.

     As remarkably, in 1998, less than 10% of judges estimated the value of these seminar gifts, another clear requirement of federal disclosure law. Worse, in this area of the law, the judiciary is actually discouraging judges from reporting required information. One judge thanked the Financial Disclosure Office for “pointing out that the actual dollar amount of expense reimbursements is not required.” Another called it “ridiculous to object to the fact that I have given more information than is needed." The result of the judiciary's instruction has been a precipitous drop in the number of judges obeying disclosure law. In 1992, the first year CRC studied, 44 of 94 judges estimated the value of their trips on their financial disclosure forms. By 1998, the final year of CRC's study, only 9 in 99 judges did so.

     In sum, judges are accepting gifts worth thousands of dollars from corporate special interests and, because judges are routinely violating federal disclosure laws, it is extraordinarily difficult for litigants or the public to find out about it. For more on what junketeers, judges and the judiciary are keeping secret, see Chapter 5.

Federal disclosure law demands that judges disclose:

The identity of the source, a brief description, and the value of all gifts aggregating more than . . . $250.

and

The identity of the source and a brief description (including a travel itinerary, dates, and the nature of expenses provided) of reimbursements received from any source aggregating more than . . . $250. 5 U.S.C. Appendix 4 § 102(a)(2)(A) & (B).

These requirements are further fleshed out in Judiciary regulations, which state that:

Back To Top