The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
What Is The Remedy For Judge Wynn's "Brazenly Partisan" Withdrawal of Senior Status?
Should he be forced to recuse from any case involving the Trump Administration?
The Article III project filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Wynn of the Fourth Circuit. Yesterday, I wrote about Wynn's "brazenly partisan" withdrawal of his intent to take senior status because Trump prevailed. But the facts are even worse than I knew. The complaint recites:
In January 2024, Judge Wynn announced his intention to assume senior status upon the confirmation of his successor.1 In March 2024, he attended a "retirement celebration" held in his honor, where prepared remarks from President Obama, who had nominated Judge Wynn, were read to the crowd.
Is it common for the President who appointed a judge to provide remarks when the judge retires? When Judge Kim Gibson, for whom I clerked, took senior status, there was a statement read from Circuit Justice Alito (who attended the same High School as Judge Gibson). I thought that was quite appropriate. But from the former President? From nomination to retirement, Judge Wynn was an Obama judge.
As we know now, he did not retire. The complaint states the obvious:
Given the timing of his announcement, the fact that he celebrated his retirement nine months earlier, and the lack of any other provided explanation combine to make clear that Judge Wynn's decision to rescind his announcement was likely made because of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Indeed, the media is already reporting that Judge Wynn apparently changed his mind as a result of the election.5 Even worse, the timing of Park's needless withdrawal followed immediately by Judge Wynn's letter gives the appearance that there was coordination between Park, Judge Wynn, and the White House to give the misimpression that Park's pointless withdrawal—and not the 2024 election results—was what prompted Judge Wynn to change his mind.
Certainly the judiciary has the power to determine what communications arose between Wynn, the Senate, and the White house. If Judge Newman can be forced to sit for a medical exam, Judge Wynn can turn over his email and call logs.
Let's assume the facts are as stated. What is the remedy? I suppose Judge Wynn could be forced to actually take senior status, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. Or maybe he could be forced to recuse from any case involving the Trump-administration. After Justice Ginsburg called President Trump a "faker" and worse, she apologized, but declined to recuse. But as we are often reminded, the lower courts are subject to an enforceable ethics code.
Professor Rob Leider suggested that Trump should go ahead an nominate somone, and let the Senate confirm them:
This is a major separation of powers problem, and it's likely unconstitutional. Presidents choose judges. Judges don't nominate their successors.
President Trump should nominate someone for his seat, and the Senate should confirm. https://t.co/xuw9P9Dgm8
— Robert Leider (@LeiderRob) December 15, 2024
Another colleague wrote that Congress should pass an appropriations riders saying notwithstanding any other statutory provision, no funds may be spent on staff or chambers of judges who withdraw their senior status request. Going forward, bilateral judicial reform can solve this problem.
Of course, lurking in the background is Judge Stranch of the Sixth Circuit. Were she to withdraw her request for senior status, especially after what happened with Judge Wynn, the appearance of playing politics will be just that much worse.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I confess that I am finding Josh's shock horrors about Judge Wynn less exciting than he is.
All the same - is there a brief idiot's guide to the legal basis of senior status ?
ie the lower courts being creatures of Congress, there are presumably statutes that specify a partiular number of District Court and Appeals Courts slots, so that senior status (allowing a new judge to be appointed, while the old one continues in office part time) must be catered for in a certain amount of detail in the statute(s) - presumably including formal procedures for taking senior status (which Judge Wynn has or has not already performed - presumably "has not.")
The intersection of a "no I've changed my mind about senior status" judge and a new one appointed to fill his slot, must presumably be resolved by a glance at the relevant statute. Presumably there's nothing to prevent the President nominating and the Senate consenting to the appointment of X to a slot that isn't vacant. but the actual appointment would have to wait until there's an open slot.
I'd like to be pointed to the idiot's guide to senior status please. Three pages absolute max - can't be that big a subject.
Senior status is defined by 28 USC 371. It is a form of retirement. A retired judge who works at least 1/4 time is eligible for salary increases the same as a regular judge. A retired judge who does not work has a fixed salary.
So the issue here is not senior status but rather, when does retirement become irrevocable?
Some practices are customary, not statutory. For example, the Senate has in the past sent a messenger to recall the confirmation paperwork when a Senator changed his mind. Maybe the President could have gotten away with appointing the officer anyway. I think it would be rude to revoke a resignation while a successor is being considered by the Senate. Now the Senate has stopped considering Circuit Court nominations. The nominations expires at the end of the session. Nobody's time is being wasted if a judge stays in office.
To be clear, they "retire from regular active service" but are still a federal judge.
The complaint here involves the "intent to take" that status. JB is worried about stating you will take senior service and then revoking it. Going to a "retirement celebration," btw, is not a formal act.
Which can be motivated for various reasons. For instance, perhaps you expect to get a position in academia, but it turns out it fell through. So, you change your mind. Thus, specifically he is concerned about partisan motivated decisions.
As people have noted, he has hypocritically not has shown consistency about this alleged travesty. Meanwhile, multiple judges on the bench are making (and has made) "partisan motivated decisions" in hope for elevation. Again, he has not consistently found this a problem.
What can be done about being a total hack other than Orin Kerr making digs on Twitter and Bluesky?
In fact, he has celebrated it, arguing that the very point of single member divisions is to allow partisans to appoint unethical/incompetent partisan hacks as judges — a feature, not a bug.
That is certainly an issue, but maybe not the issue.
I offer as a contender the text of 28 U.S.C. §371(d):
That says "who retires", not "who announces a contingent intention to retire".
The Senate could stop these conditional retirement games by refusing to play along on the grounds that the nomination isn't authorized by law.
Mostly.
The question is really - what does "who retires" mean ? And absent a statutory definition, the courts would have to decide what was enough. Presumably if there's a formal procedure - ie you send Form 572.34D to someone, then the courts would go with that.
But I don't think a nomination unauthorized by law is a thing. The process is : nomination, advice and consent, appointment. It's the last step that is governed by law - ie there has to be a suitable vacancy in an actual office.
But here I think the "who retires" runs into the practicalities of appointment.
If you say : "I will retire as soon as my successor is appointed" there's a bit of a Catch 22. If you aren't retiring until your successor is appointed, then your successor must have been appointed before you retired, which is a problem.
But if you say "I will retire as soon as my successor is confirmed by the Senate" that's fine. The appointment comes later.
"...ie there has to be a suitable vacancy in an actual office."
Didn't stop the confirmation of Broadway Justice PBJ.
Thanks for 28 USC 371.
I am intrigued by (OK mildly interested by) the reference to justices as well as judges. Which implies that SCOTUS justices can go senior. I recall that one of them - Souter ? - moonights on one of the Appeal Courts, but what is to stop a SCOTUS justice taking senior status and continuing to sit on SCOTUS part time ?
There are 9 designated SCOTUS slots and having a senior and his replacement in the same slot would seem to be a problem, but are not Appeal Court slots also limited by number ? What's different about SCOTUS slots that prevents double occupation by senior and active justices ?
Thus - for example. Suppose the Dems could have persuaded RBG to take senior status, but not retire, would that not have permitted Obama to appont her successor, avoiding the RBG => ACB switcheroo ? And, in a couple of months time, if Clarence doesn't want to retire, might he nevertheless be persuaded to take senior status, but continue part time on SCOTUS, with a Trump appointed replacement already in situ.
This problem of SCOTUS justices clinging to office and dying off at inconveient times could be greatly mitigated by the ol' senior status dodge. What - aside from vanity - is it that prevents senior status working on SCOTUS just as on the Appeal Courts ?
It's really quite simple -- just like with Congressman Matt Gaetz, Judge Wynn's resignation is not undoable.
Gaetz resigned because he thought he was going to be FBI Director.
Wynn resigned because he thought that Biden/Harris would name his replacement. There's really no difference.
And can you imagine the outrage if Gaetz were to un-resign and demand the right to be the CongressCritter from whatever district in Florida he represented? Gaetz would be laughed out of Congress, and Wynn deserves to be laughed out of the courtroom.
Besides, if he reverses this 11 months later, who says he won't start reversing his rulings as a Judge 11 months later? I argue he has shown the inability to remain on the bench in ANY capacity....
Gaetz can't take back his resignation from the current Congress. It is done and done.
What he could do that would be similar to Wynn would be to take his seat in the new House on Jan. 3 after announcing that he wouldn't. He would disappoint members from both sides, but he wouldn't be "laughed out of Congress".
And Wynn can’t take back his judicial misconduct and the consequences thereof under the Canons of the Code of Conduct of United States Judges.
What section of the ethics code did he violate, Riva?
As noted in the ethics complaint, based on the public record, Canons 5, 2A, 2B, “Rescinding a public retirement or senior-status letter because of the outcome of a presidential election is the epitome of engaging in political activity and opposing a political candidate,” as is “allow[ing] … political relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment.” Moreover, “[w]ithdrawing a public senior-status or retirement letter because of the results of a presidential election strikes at the heart of impartiality and public confidence: a judge who changes his public stance based solely on presidential elections.” “Who could expect that judge to act impartially, especially in any case involving the new President’s agencies, officials, or policies? And the possible coordination between Park, Judge Wynn, and the White House to create a smokescreen only further impugns the judiciary’s integrity.” And, “[a] public rebuke of the winner of the presidential election, in the form of publicly withdrawing a letter regarding intent to retire or take senior status because of that election, negatively implicates judicial ethical concerns at least as much as, for a political candidate or movement” on social media, which is prohibited under Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion No. 112.15.”
Wow.
Forget it, N-a-s; it's DrEdtown.
Deep down, crazy Dave, you are really just a repulsive little troll, aren't you?
Just like Dr. Ed's "Most people forget" is a tell that he is either making something up or stating something that nobody has forgotten, his "I argue" is a tell that he is about to say something so stupid that it makes sports talk radio callers who want to trade their team's backup punter for Patrick Mahomes seem like Hall of Fame NFL executives.
It is entirely true that a resignation is not undoable. Judge Wynn did not resign, though, so that's a meaningless observation.
Your comments are meaningless observations. Wynn's conduct is a violation of judicial ethics.
Professor, please stop helping.
The professor is raising a valid "good government" point about something that the media ought to have raised but somehow neglected.
This seems pretty stupid.
Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is evidence that one has lost the argument.
Yeah you’re in undergrad college if this is your argument
“This” refers to the argument, not the people making it. Although if I had to opine, it does seems stupid enough to reflect on them.
Aside from everything else wrong with your statement, "this argument is stupid" is not any fallacy, let alone "the ad hominem fallacy."
Oh Josh you're such a cutie patootie! You're so stupid when you're mad. Which is always! I love it.
Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is evidence that one has lost the argument.
He's not committing the fallacy because he's not arguing that Josh must be wrong because of his politics. He's not arguing at all. He's simply pointing out the obvious, that Blackman is an amusingly whiny bitch.
Also worth noting that Josh has explicitly stated that his judicial philosophy and analysis are results oriented. He is an originalist because it provides the policy outcomes he prefers, not due to any intellectual belief in originalism's superiority as an interpretive method.
I'm curious. Do you have friends who take you seriously? Are you sure? I'd like to meet them.
I'm wondering if he's trying to attract the attention of The Donald.
If so, he's probably mistiming it. I don't think The Donald will be prioritising judges at this point (unless there's a SCOTUS death or retirement.) The Donald is not famous for his attention span, so Josh really needs to be saving his leaping up and down for when judges come onto the agenda. Which will be after the executive appointments and a reconciliation Bill.
That said, as and when they do come on his agenda, I'm sure Trump will be willing to look beyond the registered Federalist Society Steady Eddie types and go for a bombthrower or two.
After 12 years of leftist bombthrowers being appointed by Obama & Biden, we could use a bombthrower or two so as to provide balance.
I'm not even an attorney and I could write opinions closer to the law than the drivel that comes from someone like Brown Jackson -- read her Students for Fair Admission dissent and tell me it is anything other than a racist diatribe...
A District Judge ordering the US Navy to start blowing whales out of the water with torpedoes and depth charges would actually be a good thing -- while it would be immediately appealed*, it would open people's eyes to some of the equally radical things that the Leftist judges have ordered.
* Appealed or stayed or somethinged -- it would not be implemented.
He may have his eye on the Fifth Circuit after James Ho is promoted to the Supreme Court. Nobody will notice the difference.
As much as it pains me to say this, and this is definitely saying something considering the product, Ho is somehow a much better writer than Blackman. I know I know, but it’s true. Even on a technical level the “woke constitution” line, as cringey and dumb as it is, is at least punchy and memorable. Contrast this with Blackman’s penchant for overly explained (and occasionally mixed) metaphors that he clearly thinks are the epitome of brilliance.
Which justice will Ho replace? Someone who times his departure to insure Trump names his replacement? And who only intends to retire from active service if his replacement is confirmed?
How unethical!
Resorting to the ad hominem fallacy is evidence that one has lost the argument.
Failing to distinguish between 'this is wrong because you're bad' and 'you're bad' is evidence one is not well equipped to argue.
Making a stupidly pointless distinction between a fallacious formal argument and an empty and unsupported attack on a person is evidence one is Gaslight0, DMN, not guilty or one of the other usual suspects.
You're going to say rock the latin like ad hominem, you're invoking formal argument.
.
This fuckin guy.
Josh Blackman's alternatives.
Today, Blackman is just another MAGA, noisily practicing tactical false equivalence. So long as Trump remains free of prison, a requirement will continue for an endless supply of tactical false equivalence. MAGA tacticians need it to keep their rank and file in a state of energetic befuddlement.
A record already recorded for all time shows a corruptly partisan Supreme Court decided to do whatever it took to assure a MAGA election victory, on behalf of the most depraved figure in the history of the American presidency. In the eyes of posterity, whatever political action can ensue to offset that political/judicial attack on American constitutionalism will remain fully justified.
If political power sufficient to do it can finally be assembled, all the tactical false equivalence piled up in Trump's support will subside into a noxious pit of polluted sediment. Better Americans will avoid it until the stink subsides. Afterwards, they will use it only to fill the mass grave of the MAGA operatives' historical reputations.
Blackman's asterisk is destined to be buried in that filth, deep beneath those of so many others whose effectual plotting surpassed Blackman's risible incapacity. In that scenario, historical excavators will sift for a long time before they come upon the final resting place of Josh Blackman's piddling influence, if they ever find it at all.
Of course, there remains another scenario. In that one, sufficient political power to counter the MAGA movement can never be assembled. The movement itself prevents it.
If that happens, Blackman will be enabled to take a characteristically prideful bow, for his tiny contribution to the advancement of an enormous evil.
I'm really having a hard time getting outraged about this. Sure, it was clearly partisan, but saying you're going to retire doesn't obligate you to retire, and I don't really see any basis for sanctions, let alone Trump nominating a replacement.
At most, I think Trump might have a case for recusal if Judge Wynn was involved in a case having to do with Trump. At most.
I wouldn't call it a nothingburger, but it's sure being blown out of proportion.
In the state system, and I presume the same is true in the Federal, once you put your papers in, you are gone.
The judge put his papers in...
So did Dan White, so what do you want to happen here?
What papers did Judge Wynn put in? I understand he announced an intention to retire at an unspecified date. Contrast Judge Kozinski who retired with immediate effect.
If there is an enforceable, irrevocable, conditional promise to retire it will not take effect until a successor is confirmed. Only the President can start that ball rolling.
Since "having to do with Trump" arguably includes almost everything having to do with the Trump administration, that's a very broad recusal slate. I think it raises valid cost-effectiveness concerns if a judge has conflicted him/herself out from such a vast swath of probable cases. And more serious concerns if the judge fails to recuse him/herself from the cases.
It should be noted that "He did this because Trump won," while perhaps true, is just an assumption. There is nothing, as far as I know, to actually prove this; he didn't say, as Sandra Day O'Connor reportedly did, that he was upset about the reported election outcome (when Florida had initially been called for Gore) because it meant he couldn't retire.
At most, I think Trump might have a case for recusal if Judge Wynn was involved in a case having to do with Trump. At most.
If a judge changing his mind about retiring because of who the President would be is any kind of evidence of bias against that President, then wouldn't being appointed by a particular President, and especially the potential to be promoted by that President, be evidence of favorable bias?
Kool aid drinkers unite, impeach all non trumpski judges
Ohh boy
Zero evidence of personal bias against traitortrump
blah de blah blah
The Senate (under Republican leadership) has already established that they can "choose" acceptable nominations to the courts, by withholding consideration for any picks by a Democratic president, in apparent contravention of the constitutional design.
If that is permitted, then I see no reason why a judge's (non-)retirement decisions should be treated as a constitutional crisis.
By the way, retirement timing already poses the same threat of partisan mischief. Just as judges may manipulate the timing of vacancies by "un-retiring," judges may "choose" their successors by retiring during a preferred president's term, or withholding a retirement announcement until just after the next president is inaugurated. I see no reason to distinguish the two kinds of retirement decisions.
Go back to chewing your crayons, Josh.
"in apparent contravention of the constitutional design."
Look, I'm not going to do the research again, and Reason's decision to make comments unsearchable means I can't easily find where I previously posted it, but this is nonsense.
If you look at the history of nominations, the Senate refusing to even hold a vote on a nominee is actually fairly routine, at least at the Supreme court level. It's not the usual route, but it's hardly a recent innovation.
The President needs the Senate to confirm a nominee for them to take office. The Senate, constitutionally, doesn't need to do diddly squat.
Now, maybe that's a bad thing. I tend to think it is, and we'd be better off with a system where the Senate had to vote up/down on a nominee within some reasonable time, or they'd default to taking office, in the same way legislation defaults to enacted if not vetoed.
But that really is not the Constitution we currently have. Under the current Constitution, the Senate is perfectly entitled to ignore a nomination entirely.
A separate issue is whether so much power should be concentrated in the hands of Congressional leadership. I think not, and that's NOT driven by any constitutional text. But it's up to members of Congress to fix.
It's like when I'd ask a girl out, and she wouldn't say "No", she just never said anything, which didn't happen all that often, (they usually just laughed hysterically)
Click on the head and shoulders icon at top right. Go to "account settings". Near the end of the page is a "view my comment history" link.
Best post of the year (I did not know)! I have made 6367 comments in the past 7 years. Time for me to get a life.
...and reduce your carbon footprint?
The "view my comment history" widget works intermittently at best. When it does work, it shows only those comments that were the first comment in a thread, no replies.
So no, that won't help Brett find a prior reply on a particular topic.
And here we have Brett the formalist insisting that if the Constitution allows it, it's OK and must be allowed and not criticized.
Meanwhile, in the YIMBY thread, he's taking a functional approach to HOAs where they're not libertarian because they are unpopular, even if formally they're voluntary contracts.
You swing to such extremes regarding your underlying philosophy, one might wonder if your real watchword is 'outcome I want.'
Goober's cognitive ability has been declining as he has aged and his health has deteriorated. It's all ends-motivated reasoning now, with him.
You again debate a point that hasn't been made, Goobs. It's just as well that you can't search the comments, because I can't imagine you've ever made this point well, or in a manner I care to waste my time responding to.
"Now, maybe that's a bad thing. I tend to think it is, and we'd be better off with a system where the Senate had to vote up/down on a nominee within some reasonable time, or they'd default to taking office, in the same way legislation defaults to enacted if not vetoed."
As I remember, this means that the Senate Majority leader can singlehandedly get an appointment "confirmed" simply by scheduling other matters before the Senate.
The Senate doesn't, to my knowledge, allow a simple majority to force a vote on a pending matter at any time.
A good example is up in Canada as Trudeau's government collapses.
Once people resign, the're gone, once he calls for elections, they happen. There is no rescinding this.
So somewhere else, for a different role, things are done in a certain way so this is how it must be here. Your defence is pitiful.
If all the arguments you post are shite, it means you have no non-shite arguments.
So the Judge's pulling a Ruth Buzzy Ginsburg, instead of retiring or semi/retiring early enough for Sleepy Joe to get his replacement through, he's gonna hang on to the bitter end, the Celestial retirement. Love how the idea that "45/47" would win ("He's a Felon! a Rape-ist!, an Insure-Erection-ist!") was so inconceivable to these fucks. I'd impeach the Judge just for general principals, even if there's no chance of conviction, you know, like they did with "45/47"
Frank
Seeing Josh crashing out at Judge Wynn’s decision is supremely funny
I hope he does that hyperfocus thing and we get another couple of posts on this, yeah.
No I want ten million posts on Romeo and Juliet. It’s way funnier because of how clearly petty and dumb his “critiques” are but given the length of the post it’s also clear he’s legitimately upset by it.
That would be "& Juliet".
Sure whatever.
"Couple"? Don't you mean "dozen"? At least six of which will be touting the fact that Seth Barrett Tillman once wrote something about conditional judicial retirements.
Rains: “I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find that gambling is going on here!”
Croupier (hands Rains wad of bills): “Your winnings sir.”
Rains: “Oh thank you.”
— Casablanca
That line was almost as good as this exchange:
Ugarte (Peter Lorre) to Rick (Bogart): "You despise me, don't you?"
Rick: "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Judicial ethics are a bitch until they ain't. Judicial appointment shenanigans ain't no thing...until they are. Right, Blackman?
It’s another one of those irregular verbs isn’t it?
I have a judicial philosophy
You’re a brazen partisan
He’s an agent of satan sowing discord in the courts.
If it is made certain, that once a judge takes Senior Status, they must resign, the judge will simply wait till the outcome of the election to do so. This argument is little more than moving chairs around on the deck of the Titanic, it will not alter the result, merely redesign how the game is played.
My former company has a very lenient policy about whether and when you announce your intent to retire. But once you announce and the company accepts, the date is absolute. There is no circumstance in which they let you change your mind.
When I first found out about that policy, I was skeptical. What if the company couldn't find a replacement for a critical role in time? What if the prospective retiree's life circumstances changed? Having been through the process, though, I now understand and strongly support that policy. It forces discipline on the company and the retiree to plan a transition. It balances power between the company and the retiree and reduces the potential for abuse.
You understand that — setting aside that your company's policies have nothing to do with judicial ethics — Judge Wynn didn't give a date, so the date can't be absolute here.
(Also, I'm betting that this company policy may apply to middle managers, but if the CEO changes his mind it will turn out to be a lot less absolute.)
The judge didn't set a date because the applicable rules don't require a date. Yes, I know that it's a different set of rule. I'm offering the anecdote as a normative statement about how a different set of rules could lead to different (and possibly less disruptive) outcomes.
And, no, the CEO who tried to change his mind (after the Board rejected his chosen successor) was not allowed to do so.
No "remedy" whatsoever is necessary in this situation. The office belongs to Judge Wynn, and barring impeachment, he is entitled to keep it so long as he wishes.
The mere suggestion that he should recuse from any cases involving Trump is preposterous, particularly coming from an individual who twists himself in knots defending Justices Thomas's and Alito's failures to recuse in the face of much more serious bias accusations. Deciding not to take senior status while Trump is in office does not necessarily evince antipathy for Trump or otherwise indicate that Judge Wynn can't be impartial in cases involving Trump. It just means that Judge Wynn recognizes that Trump is unlikely to nominate a replacement with a jurisprudence similar to that of Judge Wynn. One can debate whether that is a proper consideration for a judge determining whether to take senior status, but it's not demonstrative of impermissible bias. That said, I think it is dumb to expect constitutional actors to set aside real politics and act in a manner that is inconsistent with what they believe is in the best interest of the country.
Also, the only difference between revoking senior status and simply choosing not to retire while a president of the opposite party is in office is that the former is more visible. But nobody is calling for Justice Thomas to recuse from Biden cases simply because Justice Thomas would never, in a million years, retire while a Democrat is in the White House. That's because it would be a ridiculous and idiotic suggestion.
The full complaint (which Prof. Blackman does not link to) is here: https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/65a5dbf7ffda034a47a316a2/6760a3de52be7ce66e294746_Wynn%20Complaint-Press.pdf Pretty weak tea.
Blackman posits, "I suppose Judge Wynn could be forced to actually take senior status, to avoid any appearance of impropriety." Really? Forced by whom, and under what authority?
The remedy should be to pass an amendment stripping these schvartzes of American citizenship and deporting them to West Africa, from where they descended
The remedy for shitheads such as yourself is much simpler.