Powerful federal judges wield significant influence, with some of their law clerks painting a picture of a toxic work environment.
In the secretive world of young law clerks working for federal judges, certain unwritten rules apply. One such rule is the expectation to dine together every day and remain for drinks, often deep into the night, as dictated by the judge. These social gatherings can be far from relaxed. A former clerk, identified as A, shares this experience, admitting she spoke under conditions of anonymity due to fear of retribution.
"If I had refused to participate, it would have branded me as disloyal or difficult," A explains. "It was a constant reminder of how completely the judge controlled my time, even during so-called breaks."
These powerful figures have served as a check on President Trump's political policies this year from the bench. However, this same power can also intrude deeply into the lives of those who work for them, particularly law clerks. For A and her fellow clerks, this control manifested as a constant pressure to text each other covertly, trying to figure out how to end the night without upsetting their judge. They were law school graduates, professionals, and yet they felt powerless to leave.
"You stay seated, nodding along because upsetting the judge could literally end your career," A said.
Over the past year, NPR has delved into serious misconduct within the federal judiciary and the challenges of holding judges accountable. At one end of the spectrum, they heard from clerks who had allegedly suffered sexual assaults, bullying, and discrimination. But the power imbalance between judges and their young clerks also fuels a broader, more insidious culture where clerks are expected to relinquish control over almost every aspect of their lives.
Some clerks detailed incidents of their judges throwing papers or files in anger behind closed doors in their chambers. Others described judges attempting to snoop or surveil them. In total, NPR heard from multiple current and former clerks who shared stories about inappropriate behavior by 50 judges spread across 26 states. With little to no punishment, the majority of those judges continue to serve.
A former clerk, identified as C, spoke about the problems caused by excessive alcohol use in his chambers. He felt pressured to comply with his judge's commands and received instructions for when they met up with other judges, as well.
"There were instances where if we were seeing a particular judge and that other judge wanted us to drink, we were required to drink," C confesses. "There were other instances where we were asked to transport our judges without notice after having been drinking."
C wanted to fit in, to impress his judge and gain a lifelong mentor. In return, he hoped he would find a role model embodying high personal and professional standards.
"For young lawyers, this power imbalance sets up a kind of trap where they want to make their judges happy and impress them...There's really no good guardrails or mechanisms for accountability," he laments.
A former clerk, referred to as E, voices concerns about the protection given to judges through life tenure.
"Life tenure exists for a reason, but I don't think the life tenure should protect people wholly from any sort of repercussions for running unfair or toxic workplaces," E says.
With the eyes of the nation on judges as they preside over disputes at the heart of Trump's agenda to reshape the federal government, now is the time for the judiciary to address its internal issues. The critical role judges are playing in a major national crisis and as the bulwark of our democracy necessitates that they are as good as they can possibly be.
Very few law clerks ever formally report wrongdoing or retaliation. E revealed that she talked with investigators in the court system where she lived about her judge bullying her and making racist comments. However, she never heard if there were consequences for the judge who still serves today.
"The biggest takeaway was that, you know, this is really normal," she says. "I think I was really struck by how normal this is and also how quiet it is. Like nobody really talks about it unless, you know, it's like a back channel or something like that."
The federal courts are not subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. This means court employees generally cannot sue over mistreatment or discrimination. The judiciary's internal human resources process is typically the final word. The federal judiciary insists it has made significant improvements to its workplace conduct, policies, and practices since the #MeToo movement emerged eight years ago.
However, those with a keen eye on the courts remain skeptical. Gabe Roth of Fix the Court emphasizes the need for the judiciary to address its affairs given its importance in the current national crisis.
"Government officials, in particular judges, can wield significant control over their employees' lives, extending beyond the workplace to social gatherings and personal behavior," a former clerk, identified as A, reveals.
"The culture within the judiciary can be toxic, with unspoken expectations thatachers the power balance, causing law clerks to feel powerless and compelled to comply with their judges' demands," confesses a former clerk, identified as C.
