U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Admonishes Judge Samuel B. Kent for Sexual Harassment of a Judiciary Employee:
Here's the order, which is short on details, but which does say that Judge Kent's actions "violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and are deemed prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice." The details of the complaint are apparently to remain confidential.
The "appropriate remedial action" for the judge has apparently been a four-month leave of absence from the bench, plus unspecified "other measures." Recall that federal judges are generally protected from most job-related penalties, short of impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Details of the Sexual Harrassment Accusations Against Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- Federal Judge Who Sexually Harassed Employee Is Being Moved to Houston:
- More on Judge Samuel B. Kent and Impeachment:
- Update on Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- House Judiciary Committee May Open Impeachment Investigation of Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- National Organization For Women Calls for Impeachment Investigation of Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- More on the Judge Samuel B. Kent Case:
- The Ethical Cloud Over Judge Samuel B. Kent:
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Admonishes Judge Samuel B. Kent for Sexual Harassment of a Judiciary Employee:
In other cases he has ordered the parties to stop filing post-trial motions, apparently not wanting to be bothered with JNOVs and the like; the 5th Circuit told him not to enter such orders but he did so again anyway- see 400 F.3d 238 ("We are dismayed, to say the least, that, notwithstanding the above directive to the district court, it employed this improper procedure again. We remind the district court that ordering parties to forgo their rights under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is outside the scope of its authority"). In a nice touch, the 5th Circuit in that case nonetheless ruled against the party who had not filed a response out of obedience to Kent's order- apparently they should've just happily been held in contempt by Kent.
It is not surprising to learn that a guy like this thinks he can get away with anything. And his punishment looks like a 4-month paid vacation.
For my essay about him in the Green Bag, click here.
Do you think he is an appropriate candidate for impeachment?
The older I get, the more I can understand why wronged litigants accuse judges are being a party of a conspiracy. Of course, those litigants are often crazy; but examples like Judge Kent - and, of course, Judge Manuel Real - don't help the public's perception.
Indeed, one might say that the panel's decision to schroud Kent's despicable conduct (it had to have been really, really bad or else he most assuredly would not have been sanctioned) in secrecy is "prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice."
If Judge Kent wants to chase skirts on his own time, that's his own business. But when Judge Kent sexually harasses court employees (or anyone else) on the public's dime, then the public has a right to know.
Great question. One might wonder if the Fifth Circuit panel was more concerned with protecting Judge Kent than they were concerned with protecting the public?
Self-policing doesn't work. Lawyer discipline is a joke, as is judicial discipline. Cops get upset when other cops punish them for violating the law.
But nothing will change. Ten years from now, the Judge Kents of the world will remain in powerful positions, free to sexually harass court employees.
First, whatever Kent did, it has to have been a heck of a lot more than skirt chasing.
Second, I think we have now established that exactly the same conversation is taking place on every floor of every major lawfirm in the United States simultaneously.
So who's going to make the motion before the 5th Circuit to have this unsealed?
Apart from the obvious (litigants with cases on appeal), shouldn't the Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Comittee on impeachments (I forget the title) have some interest in seeing this?
Good point. To get called out, Kent must have done something in between skirt chasing and rape. Given that everyone is keeping it confidential, I am inclined to think it's closer to the heinous end of the moral spectrum.
Sweet. Would someone please punish me? (Er... Judge Kent.... if you're reading this, I do not mean that kind of punishment.)
I am of the opinion that a federal judge who is adjudged guilty of sexual harassment should be sufficient cause for removal from office.
Just to make sure you all understand me, I know it is not now sufficient cause; I just think it should be.
Judge Kent should resign if he has any common decency and sense of honor.
More to the point, in terms of public policy, what are judges in general going to do to convince the public that this is an aberration?
Nothing?
I thought so.
"Don't trouble trouble and trouble won't trouble you."
Take, for example, the comment that Judge Jones "rules with an iron fist, is not a big fan of claims of sexual harrasment, and is not the type to want something like this aired in public." Any shred of proof for this load of BS? Speak with any of the judges in the Fifth Circuit, her former employees, or people who know her from the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference, Texas State Bar Foundation, American Inns of Court, the Federalist Society, etc., and I daresay that you'll find out how absurdly wrong this vision of Judge Jones is. (Paging Todd Zywicki . . .)
As far as the various hopes of getting the details of this matter and whether the Fifth Circuit's actions in keeping them confidential are inappropriate, perhaps we all need to take a deep breath and perhaps read the statute in play (28 USC 360(a))? While I'm not an expert on this particular statute, it seems to me that Congress has largely tied the court's hands on this one. While I think the details of something like this *should* be made public (and, as pointed out in the news article referenced in an earlier comment, the complainant can go public with the charges if she wants), it's hard to fault the judicial counsel for applying the law as written.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/chronicle/5172731.html
The fact that the complaintant has hired Rusty Hardin tells me that a lot more details will be made public soon enough.
Gosh, is it as complicated as, less complicated than or more complicated than reporting potential criminal conduct by a lawyer or law enforcement officer?