Proposed Act to Support Accountability while Preserving Judicial Independence.

Proposed Act to Support Accountability while Preserving Judicial Independence.

PROPOSAL:

The below proposed Judicial Conduct and Accountability Enhancement Act of 2025 strengthens the integrity and self-governance of the federal judiciary by establishing a narrowly tailored duty of referral when appellate courts encounter credible indications that a lower court judge may have engaged in misconduct or willful disregard of constitutional obligations.

The proposed Act does not alter the content of judicial opinions, compel findings of misconduct, or subject judges to disciplinary control by other branches of government. Instead, it directs that such matters be referred—through a separate administrative communication—to the chief judge of the circuit for review under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980.

This legislation rests securely within Congress’s constitutional authority under Article I and the Necessary and Proper Clause to provide for the effective administration of the federal courts established under Article III. It preserves the independence of judicial decision-making by ensuring that appellate judges continue to decide only cases and controversies, while also affirming that no officer of the United States is beyond accountability to the rule of law.

The proposed Act thus fortifies both pillars of a healthy judiciary—independence and responsibility—by promoting transparency and public confidence without compromising the separation of powers.

DRAFT LEGISLATION:


117th CONGRESS

2d Session

A BILL

To enhance accountability within the federal judiciary by establishing a duty of referral when appellate courts become aware of information suggesting judicial misconduct or willful disregard of constitutional duties, while preserving judicial independence and the separation of powers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Judicial Conduct and Accountability Enhancement Act of 2025.”

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) Findings.—

Congress finds the following:

  1. Judicial independence is a cornerstone of the American constitutional system, essential to the fair and impartial administration of justice, as recognized in Article III of the Constitution.

  2. Judicial accountability is equally essential to the preservation of public confidence in the judiciary. Federal judges are granted life tenure and salary protection to ensure decisional independence, not immunity from the standards of integrity and conduct that preserve the rule of law.

  3. Under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, Congress established procedures for investigating judicial misconduct, but such procedures depend primarily upon external complaints and may not address serious indications of misconduct revealed during appellate review.

  4. Courts of appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States, by virtue of their appellate review of the records and proceedings of inferior courts, are uniquely positioned to recognize indications of misconduct or willful disregard for constitutional duties that may otherwise go unreported.

  5. Establishing a duty of referral—rather than adjudication—ensures that potential misconduct identified in the appellate process is appropriately reviewed under existing judicial mechanisms, without intruding upon the content of judicial opinions or the independence of decision-making.

  6. Congress’s authority to enact this Act arises under Article I, Section 8, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, as means of carrying into execution the judicial power vested by Article III, Section 1, of the Constitution.

  7. This Act is designed to strengthen judicial self-governance and accountability, to reinforce the separation of powers, and to promote continued public confidence in the integrity of the courts of the United States.

(b) Purpose.—

The purposes of this Act are:

  1. To ensure that credible indications of judicial misconduct or willful disregard for constitutional duties identified during appellate review are promptly and properly referred for administrative evaluation under existing law.

  2. To maintain the independence of judicial reasoning and limit referrals to an administrative, non-adjudicatory process.

  3. To enhance the integrity, transparency, and uniformity of judicial accountability mechanisms across all circuits.

  4. To reaffirm that the rule of law binds all officers of the United States, including those entrusted with interpreting it.

SEC. 3. DUTY OF REFERRAL BY REVIEWING COURTS.

Chapter 16 of Title 28, United States Code (the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980), is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

Ҥ 365. Duty of Referral by Reviewing Courts

  1. Duty Established.—
    Whenever a court of appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States, in the course of judicial review of a case, becomes aware of information in the record or proceedings suggesting that a judge of an inferior federal court may have engaged in conduct constituting judicial misconduct or willful disregard of constitutional duties, the reviewing court shall refer the matter to the appropriate chief judge of the circuit for review under this chapter.

  2. Method of Referral.—
    A referral under this section shall be made by separate written communication to the chief judge of the circuit and shall not form part of the opinion, judgment, or mandate of the reviewing court.

  3. Discretion of the Reviewing Court.—
    The determination to refer shall be made by majority vote of the reviewing panel, or by a majority of the Justices participating in the case, and shall be limited to identifying the existence of a potential issue of misconduct, without findings of fact or conclusions of law as to the judge’s intent or culpability.

  4. Effect of Referral.—
    A referral under this section shall initiate review under section 351 of this title as if a written complaint had been filed by a member of the public.

  5. Protection of Judicial Independence.—
    Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the decisional independence of any judge, the content of any judicial opinion, or the rights of any party to a case or controversy.”

SEC. 4. CONFORMING AMENDMENT.

Section 351(a) of Title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after “Any person alleging that a judge” the following:

“, or any reviewing court referring under section 365 determining that there is reasonable indication that a judge,”.

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of the Act and the application of the remaining provisions shall not be affected.


by Jolene Wilson

Back to blog