Chief Judge Questions Judicial Boycotts in Tossing Complaint

A federal appeals court chief judge dismissed a misconduct complaint against a district judge who will no longer hire law clerks from Columbia University, but said “widespread judicial boycotting” could lead to lower public confidence in the courts.

US District Judge Daniel Traynor of the District of North Dakota is among the 13 federal judges who signed a letter last year, promising not to hire law clerks from Columbia over its handling of student protests on the Israel-Hamas war. A newly released April 8 order from Chief Judge Steven M. Colloton of the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissing the complaint didn’t name Traynor, but he’s the only trial judge from that circuit who is part of the boycott.

According to Colloton’s order, Traynor said in written responses that the letter “was to utilize the slight influence judges have to positively impact our educational institutions.” He also said the letter would promote confidence in the judiciary and that “judges have an obligation to encourage the very best in the legal academy.”

Colloton said several of the allegations in the complaint don’t meet the bar for showing potential misconduct. But he said there’s a question about whether participating in such a boycott could lead to lower public confidence in the courts.

Colloton said that participating in a boycott could raise a problem “where judges seek through the allocation of publicly-funded employment opportunities (or other allocations of public funds) to influence the behavior of private institutions on matters of public concern.”

“The boycott at issue here involves only thirteen federal judges and one private institution, but the practice—if approved and widely accepted—could proliferate. Judges will have different views on what causes are righteous and which institutions or entities should be targeted,” Colloton wrote. “Widespread judicial boycotting based on issues of the day may well have the potential to embroil the judiciary in extrajudicial public controversies and to lower public confidence in the courts among reasonable people.”

“There is thus a substantial question whether judges cross an important line when they go beyond expressing their personal views in an effort to persuade and begin using their power as government officials to pressure private institutions to conform to the judges’ preferences,” he added.

Still, Colloton said the complaint should be dismissed “under the present circumstances.” He said that there was no guidance for the district judge on whether participating in a boycott is a “forbidden” activity for federal judges, and the code of conduct for federal judges or any ethics authorities for the judiciary don’t address boycotts.

“The matter may be appropriate for study by those who revise and interpret the Code of Conduct, but a judicial-conduct proceeding is not the appropriate forum for developing or advising on the ethical canons,” Colloton wrote.

A staffer in Colloton’s chambers said the judge doesn’t take media requests. Traynor didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

Judges James Ho of the Fifth Circuit and Lisa Branch of the Eleventh Circuit, who signed the Columbia letter, have also said they won’t hire law clerks from Yale and Stanford over those institutions’ handling of student protesters.

Other judges have also had misconduct complaints dismissed against them for having signed the Columbia University boycott letter.

Traynor last year also rejected a motion for him to recuse himself from a lawsuit on protests against the Dakota Access pipeline, over his participation in the Columbia boycott. Attorneys behind the recusal motion said they list a Columbia Law School initiative in their signature block in the complaint, and that Columbia students are working on the litigation. But Traynor said he isn’t biased against any Columbia students, programs, or faculty.