Judicial Conduct and Discipli

in the Federal Court

A thorough selection process ensures qualified, ethical judges

The President “shall nominate, and by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... judges of the Supreme 

Court, and all other officers of the United States [including

all other federal judges].” —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2

Judges for the Supreme Court, circuit courts, and district courts are 

nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Before making a nomination, the President and his staff research, investigate, and 

interview potential nominees. After the President makes a nomination, 

the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a confirmation hearing (open to 

the public) where the nominee may be asked about judicial philosophy, 

substantive law, and personal and professional conduct. The American 

Bar Association provides the Judiciary Committee with a nonbinding 

evaluation of the nominee’s qualifications.

If approved by the Judiciary Committee, the nominee goes 

before the entire Senate for approval. If approved by a majority of the 

Senate, the nominee is confirmed.

Lifetime appointment and sufficient compensation promote 

judicial independence

Judges “shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall 

... receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be 

diminished during their continuance in office.”

—U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1

Lifetime appointment enables judges to act without influence from 

political pressure or public opinion. Sufficient compensation deters 

judges from seeking additional income from outside sources that may 

undermine judicial independence, or from using a judicial appointment 

as a stepping-stone to a more lucrative position in the private sector.

Pursuant to the Constitution, Congress cannot diminish judges’ 

salaries, helping protect judges from political considerations when 

issuing decisions. Generous retirement provisions dissuade judges from 

continuing to serve after a loss of physical or mental capacity.

The Special Committee investigates the allegations and submits 

findings to the circuit judicial council, a body responsible for creating 

and implementing circuit policies, comprising the chief judge and an 

equal number of circuit and district judges. The council may dismiss 

the complaint, institute corrective measures, or refer it to the Judicial 

Conference. If necessary, the council may conduct additional investigation before acting on the complaint.

Corrective measures by the council may include temporarily 

suspending case assignments, providing informal counseling, or issuing 

censure or reprimand. Action by the Judicial Conference may include 

additional corrective measures and, if deemed appropriate, recommendation to the House of Representatives that the offending judge be 

impeached.

In the latter case, the House Judiciary Committee conducts 

an inquiry (“open to the public unless otherwise noted”) in which 

committee members question the offending judge. If a majority of the 

committee agrees impeachment is necessary, the matter goes before 

the entire House for debate and vote. A majority of the House must 

vote in favor for a judge to be impeached, at which point the matter 

goes before the U.S. Senate for trial. A two-thirds majority of the 

Senate must vote for conviction for a judge to be removed. Pursuant to 

the Constitution, a judge may be removed only for “high crimes and 

misdemeanors.”

There have been only 15 judicial impeachments in U.S. history, 

and only eight U.S. judges have been convicted and removed. 

All investigations into misconduct and implementation of 

measures designed to reprimand and correct misconduct, short of 

impeachment and removal, are conducted within the judiciary, 

which strengthens the judicial branch’s institutional independence 

and protects it from the political pressures applicable to the legislative and executive branches.

Federal Judicial Center

International Judicial Relations Office

One Columbus Circle NE

Washington DC 20002-8003

www.fjc.gov
to monitor the code, recommend amendments, and issue advisory 

opinions regarding the code.

The code’s five canons are

• A judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the 

judiciary.

• A judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of 

impropriety in all activities.

• A judge should perform the duties of the office fairly, impartially, and diligently.

• A judge may engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of a judicial office.

• A judge should refrain from political activity.

Though nonbinding, the Code of Conduct is widely followed 

and regularly consulted by members of circuit judicial councils and the 

Judicial Conference when assessing alleged misconduct and deciding 

whether corrective measures are warranted. Any judge may contact a 

member of the Code of Conduct Committee for confidential advice 

on how to comply with the provisions of the code.*

The Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980 provides 

procedures for the judiciary to investigate and discipline

misconduct of federal judges

Any litigant, attorney, or other member of the public may file with the 

clerk of the court of appeals for the circuit a written complaint alleging 

a judge’s misconduct. A chief circuit judge may also independently 

institute an investigation into possible misconduct.

Complaints must be about judicial misconduct (e.g., conflict of 

interest, bias, or other ethical violations) and not about the substance 

of a judge’s decision. The chief circuit judge reviews the complaint. 

If the complaint is not about judicial misconduct, is not factually 

supported, or corrective action has already been taken, the chief judge 

dismisses the complaint. If allegations are “reasonably in dispute,” the 

complaint is referred to a special committee, created to investigate

the complaint, comprising an equal number of circuit and district 

judges.

* The U.S. Code of Conduct is similar to the United Nations’ Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted in 2002. The Bangalore Principles serve as a 

model for nations adopting their own judicial codes of conduct.

Limitations on outside income prevent judges from entering 

into employment or income-generating contracts that would 

inhibit independence

By statute, outside income is limited to 15% of the judge’s base salary. 

Judges are forbidden from receiving a fee for giving a speech or writing 

an article. They may, however, receive book royalties or a teaching 

salary subject to the 15% limitation. They may also receive income 

not subject to the 15% limitation from pensions, annuities, deferred 

compensation, investments, solely owned or family-owned businesses, 

and the sale of intellectual property.

Judges are required to file financial reports, reviewed annually 

by the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure, to 

ensure compliance with limitations on outside income. ( Judges are also 

subject to ethics and conduct rules applicable to other federal employees.)

Laws requiring judges to remove themselves from hearing 

certain cases eliminate opportunity for bias

Judges must remove themselves when their impartiality may reasonably be questioned. Parties may waive disqualification except in the 

following circumstances, which may never be waived:

• having personal knowledge of disputed facts

• belonging to a law firm that handled the same matter during 

the judge’s employment

• being related to an attorney in a case

• having any financial interest in a party to the litigation, or a 

spouse or minor child with such an interest

• serving as counsel in the case before becoming a judge

A party may petition to remove a judge on any of these grounds, 

and the judge must decide whether any of these grounds exist. The 

judge’s decision not to recuse is subject to appellate review. If the reviewing court finds the judge’s refusal to recuse in error, the reviewing 

court may order the judge’s removal, and a misconduct complaint may 

be initiated against the judge.

The judiciary’s code of conduct provides nonbinding ethical 

guidelines for federal judges

In 1973, the Judicial Conference adopted the Judicial Code of 

Conduct. The Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee continues