The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Judicial Retirements Are Not Always What They Seem
A judge blamed Trump for his decision to leave the bench, but it also terminated a misconduct inquiry.
Back in November, Judge Mark Wolf announced his retirement from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. His decision attracted attention because he was a Reagan appointee and he publicly blamed his decision to retire on Donald Trump. He was not quiet about it. Quite to the contrary, he wrote a piece for The Atlantic and appeared on the PBS Newshour.
NPR now reports there may be more to the story:
Wolf's decision to retire coincided with an inquiry by another federal judge into potential misconduct, according to newly published orders. That inquiry found probable cause to believe an unnamed jurist had engaged in misconduct by creating a hostile workplace for court employees.
In an order dated Nov. 24, 2025, U.S. Appeals Court Judge David Barron wrote he conducted a "limited inquiry" into misconduct allegations, including interviews with the judge in question and the judge's former law clerk. The inquiry ended when the judge retired.
The order did not provide details about the alleged misconduct but stated it could include "treating litigants, attorneys, judicial employees or others in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner" or creating a hostile workplace for court employees. Judge Barron ultimately concluded that further action was unnecessary because of "intervening events."
A source familiar with the inquiry, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive internal investigation, said the judge in question is Wolf and his resignation terminated the review of his conduct.
I agree with the suggestion in the NPR story that this episode (and others, like this one in Alaska) highlight the need for more formal oversight and disciplinary procedures within the federal judiciary. One possibility would be an Article III Inspector General, appointed by the Supreme Court, with the authority to investigate these sorts of episodes more independently, as well as to publish information about how often such allegations are made and how they are resolved. Such an office might also help accelerate the rate at which bad apples leave the bench.
Were Congress to create such an office, I would also give it the authority to investigate allegations of judicial assignment manipulation and procedural irregularities and conflicts of interest. I would also like it to compile and publish information about things like reversal rates. I do not particularly trust Congress to provide meaningful oversight of hte judiciary, but the judiciary could definitely provide greater oversight of itself.
