Federal Judges should maintain the same constitutional standard as they impose on President Trump

October 17, 2025 - by Fred Bates 

Federal judges hold Trump to a higher standard when enforcing the Constitution 

    About two weeks ago, I read an article by Jordan Rubin a legal reporter for MSNBC regarding a ruling by U.S. District Court Judge William Young against the Trump administration's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinians for exercising their right to free speech. Judge Young sits on the bench for the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. It's pretty clear to me Rubin is a Trump hater and lack objectivity when it comes to his opinions about the President. The title of Rubin's article is "Judge's novel free speech opinion doubles as broad indictment of Trump." The purpose of this post is not to talk about Rubin's Trump derangement. I will focus on Judge Young's ruling that the Trump administration's deportation of certain noncitizens espousing pro-Hammas and pro-Palestinian views on Ivy League universities, namely Harvard, violated their First Amendment right to free speech.  

    I disagree with Judge Young's ruling because I believe the government has the authority and an obligation to restrict speech in certain situations that is intended to promote or incite violence that endangers the safety of Jewish students on college campuses, as happened in this case. Remember when Trump was impeached for allegedly inciting the riot on January 6th; even though he urged protesters to act peacefully and patriotically? I mention this as food for thought. 

    Judge Young framed his opinion as a response to a postcard he apparently received, dated 19/June 2025, from an anonymous source stating: "TRUMP HAS PARDONS AND TANKS.... WHAT DO YOU HAVE?" Judge Young responded with: "Dear Mr. or Ms. Anonymous, Alone, I have nothing but my sense of duty. Together, We the People of the United States -- you and me -- have our magnificent Constitution. Here's how that works out in a specific case --.

    Judge Young went on to make some less than flattering comments about Trump and what Judge Young believes is Trump's lack of regard for the free speech rights of those whose speech he "disdains." He called the President a bully that misunderstands the country he serves as commander-in-chief, and that he is fixated on bragging and retribution, primarily on issues of speech. A case can be made that Judge Young's comments have some credibility. Certainly, government retribution for speech is directly forbidden by the First Amendment. Unlike Judge Young, I'm not convinced that is what happened in this case with pro-Palestinian or pro-Hammas protestors on college campuses around the country. 

    Judge Young opined that the effect of the Trump administration's targeting of noncitizen pro-Palestinians for deportation strikes fear into "similar situated non-citizen pro-Palestinian individuals," and unconstitutionally chills their freedom of speech.   I believe Judge Young's ruling will be overturned on appeal in the Court of Appeals, if not there, definitely on appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    My problem with Judge Young's claims about Trump is that he is holding the President to a standard that many federal judges do not maintain themselves. In other words, there is a different standard for President Trump that is higher than that of federal judges. 

    I give you an example of how our "magnificent Constitution," using the words of Judge Young, has not worked out in a specific case, a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination in 2006. I am black/African American. During the litigation of my lawsuit, judges and court officials in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the City of San Jose to perpetuate fraud on the court with the filing of a motion for summary judgment based on claims that were totally false and contradicted admissions the City made in its answer to my complaint for damages. The courts granted the City's summary judgment motion, thereby dismissing my lawsuit based on the City's fraudulent claims, and based on the unconstitutional application of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) to a small claims court judgment the City won against me in the State of California. 

    When determining the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered in a state court, the full faith and credit act (28 USC Section 1738) commands that federal courts give to a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as would the courts of the state where the judgment was rendered. 28 USC Section 1738 is not a suggestion; it is a mandate or a command that federal courts must follow. Every single federal judge knows about the requirement of the full faith and credit act. The first question a federal judge must answer when determining the preclusive effect of a state court judgment is: Will courts in the state that rendered the judgment give preclusive effect to that judgment? Stated differently, they must look first to the preclusion law of the state that rendered the judgment. This requirement for collateral estoppel or issue preclusion is supported by Supreme Court precedent. It is without any doubt that under California preclusion law collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts because of their informal nature. It is not debatable that the courts violated the requirements of the full faith and credit act and the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by giving preclusive effect to the small claim's judgment in my lawsuit. 

    Furthermore, there was no litigation in my small claims case. The small claims court commissioner made a ruling that he could not grant the compensation I was seeking without hearing any testimony or addressing any issues in my complaint. Also, there is no record from the small claims court that pinpoints what was litigated and decided. Even if this was a formal proceeding where collateral estoppel would normally apply, it would not apply under the precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which requires a record that pinpoints what was litigated and decided in the state court. The burden was on the City of San Jose to produce that record. I present all of these facts regarding collateral estoppel to show that the courts had a blatant lack of regard for our "magnificent Constitution."

    Showing further disregard for our magnificent Constitution is the actions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals when I appealed the unlawful judgment of the district court granting the City's motion for summary judgment. During the hearing, the court said it was doubtful that collateral estoppel applied because there had to have been actual litigation. But this point is moot because as I pointed out already, collateral estoppel does not apply to judgments rendered in small claims courts in California. Therefore, the full faith and credit act that implements the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution prohibits federal courts from applying collateral estoppel to judgments rendered in small claims court in California. End of story! Yet, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court with the knowledge that the judgment was in violation of 28 USC Section 1738 and the U.S. Constitution.

    The disregard for the Constitution by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals went even further during the hearing on my appeal. During the hearing, Judge William Fletcher made blatantly biased comments that violated my Fifth Amendment due process right to an impartial tribunal. He stated he was going to cut to the chase. He asked why I was making this a federal case; and why I didn't just drop the darn thing [my lawsuit], after my unsuccessful small claims case. This is shocking since it was Judge Fletcher who stated he was doubtful about collateral estoppel. He also discredited the City's claim that there was no evidence to support my Monell Claim. This blatant lack of impartiality by Judge Fletcher, alone, makes the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. 

    Judge Young claims against President Trump is a hypocritical double standard. As I have clearly proved above with the actions of the judges in my lawsuit against the City of San Jose, it is judges who misunderstand their roles as impartial arbiters obligated to adhere to the rule of law and precedent. In his ruling, Judge Young finds that the Trump administration's actions violated the Constitution, as well as his oath to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution." The judges in my lawsuit are guilty of violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, just as Judge Young accuses Trump of doing.  

    Judge Young stated in his ruling that the judiciary has robustly rebuffed Trump and his administration's efforts to seek retribution for speech it dislikes. While the judiciary has been able to provide oversight of the Trump administration's alleged overreach as it relates to issues of free speech and due process, there has been no meaningful oversight of the judiciary's blatant violation of my constitutional rights during the litigation of my lawsuit. The lack of regard for the Constitution by the judges in my case is not a one-off. During a conversation with San Jose Senior Deputy City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021, he said that judges do not have to follow the law. The law is whatever the judges say it is. Pritchard also said the courts do not change their rulings, even if they are clearly erroneous. So far, the courts have refused to change the clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment in my lawsuit by denying my many attempts to obtain relief.

    Just as judge Young accuses Trump of being a bully and chilling free speech of noncitizens, judges in my case acted as bullies as well. They repeatedly denied me relief from a clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment by simply stating that the courts had repeatedly rejected my claims, without actually addressing the merits of my claims. Speaking of chilling free speech, one judge declared me to be a vexatious litigant and subjected me to a pre-filing screening order. Judge Young stated that he only had his "sense of duty." Unlike Judge Young, the judges in my case had no "sense of duty." They violated their oath of office and the Canon of Ethics for federal judges by covering up racism and bigotry of the City of San Jose. 

    In the final statements of his opinion, Judge Young makes the comment: " I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected." Judge Young asked, "Is he correct?" The same fear that Judge Young has about Trump is the same fear I have about federal judges; particularly, in light of the comments by Matthew Pritchard that judges do not have to follow the law, and that the law is whatever judges say it is. Just as Judge Young asks, I ask, "Is he [Pritchard] right?"

    My message to Judge Young is that in order for the Constitution to be "magnificent," federal judges must hold themselves to the same standard as President Trump.  

For more details about my claims against the federal judiciary, see my website at the link below:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is not wrong that George Santos' prison sentence should be commuted

 August 27, 2025 - by Fred Bates

    In a letter dated August 4, 2025, to Pardon Attorney Edward Martin, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene requested that the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the Department of Justice urge President Trump to commute the sentence of former Congressman George Santos. Santos, who was expelled from Congress in 2023, is serving seven years in federal prison for campaign related crimes of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. 

    Among other things, Rep. Greene alleged that many of her colleagues have committed far worse offenses that Santos. but have faced zero criminal charges. Rep. Greene is absolutely right! In March of this year, I filed an ethics complaint against Congressman Sam Liccardo for his role in a scheme to obstruct justice during a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination when Liccardo was a councilmember and Mayor of the City of San Jose. I am black/African American. During this scheme to obstruct justice, Liccardo and members of the San Jose City Council directed attorneys for the City to perpetrate fraud on the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals by filing a motion for summary judgment based on several false claims. Liccardo and City leaders also directed two police officials to commit perjury in their depositions, and in a declaration in support of the City's fraudulent motion for summary judgment. One of those police officials, a defendant in my lawsuit, was dismissed by a fraudulent stipulation between my attorney and the City without my consent or a settlement agreement. That same police official was bribed by City officials with a promotion from Captain to Deputy Chief of Police in return for his perjured testimony relative to my lawsuit. My attorney was also paid off by the City of San Jose for his role in the criminal scheme of the City to obstruct justice. Liccardo was at the forefront of this scheme by the City that included the crimes of perjury, subornation of perjury, tampering with a witness, bribery, and conspiracy to obstruct justice. 

    So far Congressman Liccardo has faced zero criminal charges based on my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics, and on a report documenting the obstruction of justice that occurred in my lawsuit that I submitted to the Supreme Court, and leaders of the House of Representatives and Senate. Liccardo's crimes are far worse than those that former Congressman Santos is serving time for. Many, if not all, are felonies that undermine the judicial process, democracy, and the rule of law. To see the report that I submitted to the Supreme Court and Congress, as well as a copy of my complaint with the Office of Congressional Ethics against Congressman Liccardo, access my website at the link below:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com

Abuse of judicial independence by federal judges is a far greater threat to democracy and the rule of law than threats to the judiciary

 May 15, 2025 - By Fred Bates

Justice Sotomayor's call for "fearlessly independent" courts reeks of politics!

It seems that a day never goes by without some federal judge making a statement regarding the importance of an independent judiciary and speaking out against threats to the judiciary. About a week ago, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke at an event hosted by the American Bar Association urging lawyers to stand up in the midst of threats. In March of this year (2025) she called for "fearlessly independent" courts at a Georgetown law event. In my recent posts, I acknowledged the need for an independent judiciary, and I denounced violence and threats against our federal judges. However, I opined that the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is not violence and threats against federal judges. I stated that the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is the lack of any guardrails or oversight of the judiciary from within the judicial branch itself or Congress.

All of this talk from federal judges about the importance of an independent judiciary and speaking out against threats to federal judges is obviously meant to be critical of President Trump. But a more subtle reason exists as well. Talk about an independent judiciary is a way for these federal judges to say that they want no oversight of the federal judiciary. They want to run the judicial system as they see fit, often times with a lack of regard for impartiality, justice, honesty, the Constitution, and the rule of law. They want total control or absolute power. This is what happens in totalitarian states, not a Constitutional Republic. When Chief Justice Roberts and other federal judges like Justices Sotomayor and Jackson talk about an independent judiciary they are speaking about the absolute power of federal judges to make decisions without oversight or criticisms from the legislative and executive branches of government. The want blind obedience of their orders without any questions regarding their legality. But oversight is an important component of the separation of powers doctrine. Judicial independence does not mean federal judges operate without any guardrails. Just as the executive and legislative branches of government are constrained by oversight, the Constitution and the rule of law, so is the federal judiciary. The recent spate of federal judges extolling the virtues of an independent judiciary is all about politics. The truth is, however, that the abuse of judicial independence by federal judges poses the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law and not threats against judges or criticisms of their rulings. 

 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and other federal judges come out in support of Chief Justice Roberts misleading claims about threats to democracy and the rule of law

 May 7, 2025 - By Fred Bates

The federal judiciary itself is the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law 

In my post on January 7, 2025, I explained that Chief Justice Roberts had made misleading claims in his 2024 Year End Report on the judiciary. I stated that he had exaggerated the threats that violence and intimidation against federal judges posed to democracy and the rule of law. In my post on February 14, 2025, I stated that we did not need any more lectures from Chief Justice Roberts regarding an independent judiciary. 

Recently, other federal judges have come out in support of Chief Justice Roberts claims about threats and intimidation against federal judges that threatens judicial independence and the rule of law. U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge Julia Childs came out in support of Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Year End Report as president of the Federal Judges Association. In an interview, Judge Childs stated that judges are fair and neutral arbitrators of the law. She said that it is the job of judges to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to any case. If you have read some of the posts from this blog, then you should have an idea that Judge Childs's claim that judges are fair and neutral arbitrators of the law is disinformation. Judge Childs correctly states that it is the job of judges to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to any case. However, this blog is replete with evidence that judges failed to adjudicate the facts of the law with respect to a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination. I am black/African American. 

At the beginning of this month (May 2025) at a judicial conference in Puerto Rico, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson denounced what she called "relentless attacks" on the federal judiciary. She stated that efforts to intimidate judges were threatening the Constitution and the rule of law. Justice Jackson comments were directed at President Trump who has been a vocal critic of federal judges. It is clear her comments at the conference in Puerto Rico were politically motivated. Justice Jackson apparent concern for the Constitution and the rule of law is insincere. In March of this year (2025) I submitted a report to her and each of the Justices of the Supreme Court detailing a criminal scheme involving the City of San Jose, the US. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to obstruct justice during the litigation of the discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose just mentioned in the paragraph above. I have not received a response from Justice Jackson or any of the other Justices of the Supreme Court regarding my report. 

I believe most Americans like me are repulsed by threats of violence and intimidation against judges, whether at the federal, state or local level. However, violence and intimidation against judges is not the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law. The greatest existential threat to democracy and the rule of law is public corruption. The worst form of public corruption is corrupt federal judges who refuse to follow the law and lack impartiality. If you want to see an example of this judicial corruption, see the report in my post on March 14, 2025, or you can view it on this website: cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com.

Report on Obstruction of Justice by San Jose City Officials and Federal Court Officials

March 14, 2025 - By Fred Bates

    This post contains a link for a report I completed in October 2024 that documents my allegation that San Jose city officials, officials with the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals obstructed justice during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose. The case is Bates v. City of San Jose, et. al. US District Court case number C06-05302 RMW. Below is a statement about the report: 

    The report details a scheme by San Jose city officials, my attorney, the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to obstruct justice during litigation of a racial and disability discrimination lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose in 2006. I am black/African American. My lawsuit was filed after police officials denied me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department as a police sergeant. The report details several specific criminal acts by the above officials that relate to public corruption. As a part of the scheme to obstruct justice, attorneys for the City and my attorney perpetrated fraud on the U.S. District Court in San Jose, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is sufficiently clear from the report that the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were complicit in the scheme to obstruct justice based on their biased rulings in favor of the City of San Jose. Both courts disregarded facts that were clearly established in court proceedings and documents in the record proving that the City of Jose knowingly and maliciously violated my constitutional rights established by California law and San Jose Police Department policy. The report provides evidence that the District Court and the Court of Appeals violated the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution by failing to follow the requirements of the full faith and credit act (28 U.S.C. Section 1738), as well as Supreme Court precedent and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' precedent when dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel. The report also provides evidence that a judge, made blatantly biased comments against me in the hearing on my appeal of the District Court’s judgment in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge stated that he understood the legal arguments made during the hearing, but he wanted to “cut to the chase” and find out why I was making this a “federal case.” He also asked why I didn’t just “drop the darn thing,” referring to my lawsuit. This same judge had already discredited the District Court’s ruling dismissing my lawsuit on the basis of collateral estoppel, as well as, claims by the City of San Jose earlier in the hearing. The egregious and blatantly biased comments of the judge violate the neutrality requirement of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, the Mission Statement of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the oath of federal judges, and the Canon of Ethics for federal judges. The Supreme Court in a precedent setting case stated that it guarded the neutrality requirement jealously. The biased comments make the judgment in my case unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. The report provides evidence of a cover-up by court officials in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. A strong case is made for the impeachment of several judges in the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Evidence is presented in the report that several prominent officials at the highest level of the United States Government was made aware of this criminal scheme but failed to take any action based on their constitutional powers of oversight. It is clear from the report that the U.S. District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals are corrupt, weaponized, and rigged.

    The report itself is 59 pages longs. The appendices are over 600 pages long. The appendices provide facts, evidence, case law and statutory law that corroborates claims I make in the report. Since the report and appendices are lengthy, it will take a few minutes to download the report and appendices. Review the report on this website:

www.cheatingscandalinsiliconvalley.com 

    This report is the basis for my Manifesto: 

MANIFESTO OF FRED BATES 

 I WILL DIE ON THIS HILL 

    My report completed in October 2024, to be submitted to Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Department of Justice, is the basis for this manifesto. My manifesto is a statement that I will never accept the order of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the judgment of the US District Court in San Jose dismissing my lawsuit against the City of San Jose that was filed in August 2006. The judgment is based on fraud by the City, a violation of the law by the courts, and bias against me by the courts. My lawsuit resulted when several police officials violated my civil rights by denying me a CCW permit upon my medical disability retirement from the San Jose Police Department in 2004. Their actions were malicious, racist, and done with the intent to humiliate me, and to cause me emotional pain and suffering. Final judgment was entered in my lawsuit in 2009. The judgment is unconstitutional and unenforceable by law. All of my efforts to obtain a reversal of the judgment beginning in 2010 have failed. My most recent effort for relief is a petition for writ of certiorari filed in the Supreme Court in July 2023. My petition for writ of certiorari was denied in October 2023. Since all of my options to obtain relief in the courts have been exhausted, I will seek relief through extrajudicial means. This is not meant to be a threat of violence, nor is it meant to be belligerent or menacing in any way. My manifesto is a statement that I will die on this hill. I mean this figuratively and literally. It means that I will pursue justice in this matter at all costs through respectful non-violent protest, civil disobedience, or other reasonable means. I have a moral obligation to do so. Our Constitutional Republic, as established by our founding fathers, provides for an independent judiciary based on the separation of powers doctrine. This means that judges have the independence and obligation to make decisions that safeguard the rights of citizens and uphold the rule of law. It is established in my report that the judges made rulings in my lawsuit, all in favor of the City of San Jose, that were clearly erroneous, failed to safeguard my rights, and did not follow the rule of law. The actions and rulings of the judges in my case are revolting. The blatant lack of respect for the rule of law by these judges is reflected in comments made by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge William Fletcher during the hearing on my appeal of the district court’s judgment granting the City of San Jose’s motion for summary judgment in November 2009. Judge Fletcher said, “I’m going to cut to the chase a little bit. I understand all the legal arguments that we’ve been going through. I mean, it’s a cliché to say, why did you make a federal case out of this? He asked for the concealed weapons permit. He’s denied. He requested it again. He’s granted. Why doesn’t he just drop the darn thing?” From the report, it is clear that Judge Fletcher understood that the district court’s dismissal of my lawsuit based on collateral estoppel was in violation of the Constitution and the full faith and credit act. He also discredited the City of San Jose’s claim that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support my Monell Claim. This blatant disregard for the rule of law, and the flagrant bias against me by Judge Fletcher completely delegitimizes the judgment of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Further evidence of the courts’ blatant lack of respect for the rule of law are comments made to me by Senior San Jose Deputy City Attorney Matthew Pritchard in 2021. Pritchard told me in a phone call that courts do not have to follow the law, because the law is whatever the courts say it is. He also told me that the rulings of the courts on the issue of collateral estoppel in my lawsuit are clearly wrong. He said that I will lose because the courts never change their decisions, even those that are clearly erroneous. He said that I should accept the erroneous decisions of the courts because he accepted decisions by the courts that were wrong when he was a Public Defender. Pritchard also made a statement that was quite shocking. He said the City did not care that I was black and that I grew up in the South during Jim Crow. This is evidence that the discriminatory acts against me by the City were racially motivated. For the past fourteen years, more or less, I have sought to have the courts vacate the clearly erroneous and unconstitutional judgment in my lawsuit filed against the City of San Jose in 2006, all to no avail. The judgment in my lawsuit does not remotely resemble justice, and it shows contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law by the courts. For our judicial system to have any credibility, the judgement in my lawsuit must be set aside. I will accept nothing less, and I have no intention of waiting another fourteen years for this to happen. This is a hill I’m willing to die on! The rule of law must prevail if we are to have a constitutional republic or a democracy. My report documents in detail my unsuccessful efforts to initiate an investigation into this matter by government officials at every level, as well as the media. This failure to act by government officials and the media is quite shocking being that San Jose city officials and the courts committed several crimes that are felonies under federal corruption laws. A post in a blog I started in 2015 in order to expose the misconduct of the City of San Jose and the courts in this scandal emphasizes my commitment to respectful non-violent protest. The link to that post is below:

A Cheating Scandal in the Silicon Valley - Justice for Sale: Democracy Requires an Independent Judiciary Free from Violence and Intimidation that Adheres to the Rule of Law

We do not need any more lectures about an independent judiciary from Chief Justice Roberts

By Fred Bates - February 14, 2025

    In my post on January 7, 2025, I stated that Chief Justice Roberts had made misleading claims about the threat to judicial independence in his 2024 Year End Report. I not only stand by what I stated in that post, I will expand upon it. Agreed, judicial independence is a very important component of our constitutional form of government. Agreed, violence and intimidation directed against judges poses a threat to judicial independence and the rule of law. As I also noted in my post, the threat to judicial independence is not the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law. The greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is the lack of any guardrails imposed on our judiciary by oversight from within the judiciary itself or from the executive and legislative branches of government. The lack of any guardrails or oversight over our federal judges has fostered a culture of corruption in our federal judiciary that has completely undermined our Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.  

    Chief Justice Roberts has made it a habit of reminding us of the independence of the judiciary in his Year End Reports and many other public statements. We get it Chief Justice Roberts. We don't need any more lectures from you or any other federal judges for that matter about an independent judiciary. When Chief Justice Roberts and other judges talk about an independent judiciary, what they are really saying is that they do not want to have any guardrails or oversight on what actions they take. They use the independence of the judiciary as a shield to discourage, intimidate, and deter the executive and legislative branches of government from imposing guardrails or oversight on the judiciary as is required by the Constitution.      

   Chief Justice Roberts and other judges should stop constantly lecturing Americans about the importance of an independent judiciary. We get it! What Chief Justice Roberts and other judges should be doing is giving Americans assurance that they are committed to upholding the rule of law and precedent. I have my doubts that this will happen because the rule of law and precedent does not seem to be high on judges' list of priorities. This is especially true in our federal courts. 

                                                                                                                                        

 

 

Chief Justice Roberts Makes Misleading Claim About the Threat to Judicial Independence

 Response to Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary

January 7, 2025 - By Fred Bates

    In his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts gave a historical background on the evolution of our independent federal judiciary. Roberts credits former Chief Justice Rehnquist as saying that the independent judiciary, established by Article III of the US Constitution, is the crown jewels of our system of government. Roberts also credited Chief Justice Rehnquist with articulating in his 2004 Year End Report that the Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law. Roberts also stated in his report that Justice Kennedy had commented that judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please but is conferred so judges can do what they must.

    While recognizing that the First Amendment protect criticism of judicial decisions, Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern about uninformed criticisms and illegitimate activity that he believes threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. 

    As to his concerns, every sane person is going to agree that violence and intimidation directed at judges is unacceptable. And that those perpetrating violence or intimidation against a judge or their family should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Chief Justice Roberts concern that disinformation or the deliberate distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the court system has some credibility. The final threat to judicial independence as stated by Roberts is the defiance of lawfully entered judgments by courts of competent jurisdiction. Certainly, from a theoretical standpoint the defiance of a judgement by the executive or legislative branches of government challenges the independence of the judiciary based on the separation of powers doctrine. 

    The problem with Chief Justice Roberts' 2024 Year End Report is that it exaggerates the threat to judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts is well aware that the executive and legislative branches of government face the same threats to their independence by violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of their lawful authority just as the judiciary. Our three branches of government will not cease to function as independent co-equal entities as provided for by our Constitution because of occasional threats from disenchanted parties. We have laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with threats to government officials. Our robust freedom of speech and press rights under the First Amendment is certainly capable of providing a counter to disinformation. Also, each branch of government has powers to hold accountable those that openly defy their lawful authority. 

   Chief Justice Roberts has made it a practice of defending the independence of the federal judiciary as being important to democracy. However, his concern about the threat to judicial independence deflects attention away from the dysfunction and corruption in our federal courts that poses the greater threat to democracy and the rule of law. Not only has judicial independence not been significantly threatened as Chief Justice Roberts claim, but judicial independence has been a shield that protects the judiciary from badly needed oversight by the executive and legislative branches of government. Judicial independence has benefitted judges by allowing them to disregard the rule of law and do as they please, and not as they must, contradicting the purpose of judicial independence as stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy according to Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 Year End Report. 

    This blog has been dedicated to exposing corruption in the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination in 2006. I am black/African American. Judges from both courts did as they please by entering judgments that disregarded the rule of law and were biased in favor of the City. It is unmistakable that corrupt judges are a greater threat to an independent judiciary than violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.