Sign In
Free Newsletter
Federal judges’ boycott of Columbia Law School grads unconscionable
Listen to this articleIt’s jaw-dropping that a group of 13 federal judges has announced in a public letter sent to Columbia University that they will boycott hiring law clerks from Columbia Law School. Each judge was appointed by President Donald Trump. Two signatories to this letter, Judges James C. Ho, of the 5th Circuit, and Elizabeth L. Branch, of the 11th Circuit, also announced in 2022 and 2018 they would not hire Yale or Stanford grads.
Their announcement astonishes for so many reasons, not the least of which is their targets are not students who joined anti-Israel protests this spring but, instead, the university itself. In a letter to the Wall Street Journal, Matthew Solomson, a judge on the Court of Federal Claims, wrote that their reason for targeting Columbia University itself is “to change the behavior of the target.”
Perhaps their logic would be acceptable if they were a group of activists organizing a boycott of Walmart because it sold Israeli products, or it abused its labor force.
Here is a group of federal judges who are supposed to be impartial and not take sides outside the courtroom, who ostensibly speak through Solomson when he writes “it’s important to force Columbia and its peer institutions to change.” Solomson claims he signed onto this boycott to “send a clear message to Columbia that its approach to campus antisemitism and anti-Americanism (whatever that’s supposed to mean) is unacceptable.”
This is hardly an exercise in judicial independence, but it appears a form of judicial punishment for the exercise of viewpoints on campus that these judges do not care for.
This sort of retribution, or any retribution for that matter, is hardly the job of the federal judiciary; if even one judge was to take this public position in order to exert pressure on a university to change its policies it would be shocking; for 13 judges to organize their efforts to mold the policies of American universities to their views using threats and boycotts is simply jaw-dropping in its impropriety.
This is not the role of an impartial judiciary and we are unable to conceive of any circumstances that make this conduct acceptable.
What these 13 judges have done should not be unnoticed by Congress although the House will not raise its collective eyebrow. The judicial councils of each circuit retain supervisory powers over these judges, and they have the ability to examine their conduct for violations of ethics laws and codes of conduct. We urge them to do so.
Editorial Advisory Board members Arthur F. Fergenson and Debra G. Schubert did not participate in this opinion.
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS
James B. Astrachan, Chair
James K. Archibald
Gary E. Bair
Andre M. Davis
Eric Easton
Arthur F. Fergenson
Nancy Forster
Susan Francis
Julie C. Janofsky
Ericka N. King
Angela W. Russell
Debra G. Schubert
Jeff Sovern
H. Mark Stichel
The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.
