The report released this week by the Community Rights Counsel, a public interest law firm, says 237 judges took 539 trips over a three-year period. Each trip, to dude ranches and lush resorts, was worth thousands of dollars and was paid for by several conservative organizations that favor property rights in environmental disputes, the report said. For instance, the report says District of Columbia federal judges Douglas Ginsburg and Stephen Williams voted against the Environmental Protection Agency's limits on smog and soot after attending a purportedly pro-business environmental seminar at a Montana resort. The Supreme Court will review the case this fall. Judges are taught how and why to strike down federal environmental protections.
Some judges appear to be listening.
In 1993, Williams ruled against timber interests when the endangered spotted owl was at risk of extinction. After a seminar at Elk Creek Ranch in Idaho, Williams reversed his role, the group charged. Neither Ginsburg nor Williams was available for comment. While most judges are honest and do not engage in activities that present potential conflict of interest, some actions like taking free trips organized by special interests clouds the judicial branch, former chief judge at the D.C. federal circuit Abner Mikva wrote in a foreword to the report. If an actual party to a case took the judge to a resort, all expenses paid, shortly before the case was heard, it would not matter what they talked about.