Judicial Watch
WASHINGTON, DC – Judicial Watch announced it filed a judicial misconduct complaint against three federal judges in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois for standing orders that grant special preferences to lawyers who appear before them based on the lawyers’ race, ethnicity, or gender/sex.
The complaint names Chief Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel, Judge Staci M. Yandle, and Judge David W. Dugan for orders Judicial Watch states are discriminatory and unconstitutional and constitute “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.”
On January 7, 2020, Judge Yandle entered a standing order that provides, in pertinent part:
Recognizing the importance of the development of future generations of practitioners through courtroom opportunities, the undersigned encourages the participation of newer, female, and minority attorneys in proceedings in my courtroom, particularly with respect to oral argument … To that end, the Court adopts the following procedures regarding oral arguments as to pending motions:
- After a motion is fully briefed, as part of a Motion Requesting Oral Argument, a party may alert the Court that, if oral argument is granted, it intends to have a newer, female, or minority attorney argue the motion (or a portion of the motion).
- If such a request is made, the Court will:
- Grant the request for oral argument on the motion it if is at all practicable to do so.
- Strongly consider allocating additional time for oral argument beyond what the Court may otherwise have allocated were a newer, female, or minority attorney not arguing the motion.
- Permit other more experienced counsel of record the ability to provide some assistance to the newer, female, or minority attorney who is arguing the motion, where appropriate during oral argument.
***
Chief Judge Rosenstengel entered a nearly identical standing order on January 17, 2020, followed by Judge David W. Dugan doing the same on October 6, 2020.
Judicial Watch’s complaint states:
The orders are patently discriminatory and unconstitutional as well as patronizing and deeply offensive. They also plainly imply that female and minority attorneys are less competent, less skilled, and less qualified than male and non-minority attorneys and require additional time and assistance to represent their clients. Moreover, they send a clear message to clients that, if they hire female or minority attorneys, they will be afforded advantages that they will not be afforded if they hire male or non-minority attorneys. They also erode litigants’ and the public’s trust and confidence in the justice system.
The complaint alleges the orders violate Rule 4(a)(3). They also violate Judicial Canon 2(A) and the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Judicial Watch explains:
- Rule 4(a) of the Rules for Judicial-Conduct and Judicial-Disability Proceedings.
Misconduct is defined as “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts” and includes “intentional discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, gender, gender identity, pregnancy, sexual orientation, religion, national origin, age, or disability.”
- Judicial Cannon 2(A).
Judicial Canon 2(A) requires judges to “comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.”
The orders “are unconstitutional because they equate to government-imposed, race-, ethnicity-, and sex/gender-based discrimination that violates the equal protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment.”
Judicial Watch concludes:
Courtroom time is a finite resource, and allowing oral argument, additional time, or the assistance of additional counsel based on immutable characteristics like race, ethnicity, and sex/gender is the antithesis of justice and fairness. It also does a substantial disservice to the very persons the orders purport to assist, implying that female and minority lawyers lack the competence, skills, and qualifications of male and non-minority lawyers…. Judicial Watch respectfully requests that swift, corrective action be taken to remediate this ongoing misconduct in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
“This woke discrimination has no place in America’s courtrooms,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is frankly shocking that any federal judge would think it appropriate to engage in flagrant race and sex discrimination in this day and age.”
Judicial Watch lawsuits and FOIA requests on Critical Race Theory and other leftist extremism are extensive:
In January 2024, Judicial Watch sued the Oakland Unified School District in California for records on a racially segregated “playdate” held on August 26, 2023, by one of the district’s elementary schools. The Judicial Watch lawsuit seeks records on the planning and authorization of the “playdate” held by Chabot Elementary School titled “Playdate Social for Black, Brown & API [Asian/Pacific Islander] Families.”
In July 2023, Judicial Watch exposed records from the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA), a component of the United States Department of Defense, which included instructional materials and emails that address topics such as Critical Race Theory, “white privilege,” and Black Lives Matter.
In March 2023, records from the U.S. Department of Defense showed the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) has made race and gender instruction a top priority in the training of cadets.
In July 2022, Judicial Watch sued the Department of Defense for records related to the United States Naval Academy (USNA) implementing Critical Race Theory (CRT) in the training of naval recruits
In August 2022, Judicial Watch’s client David Flynn, who was removed from his position as head football coach after exercising his right as a parent-citizen to raise concerns about Critical Race Theory and Black Lives Matter propaganda in his daughter’s seventh-grade history class, settled his civil rights lawsuit against his former employers at Dedham Public Schools. As part of the settlement, the Superintendent of Dedham Public Schools, Michael Welch, acknowledged “the important and valid issues” raised by Flynn and specific changes in school policies because of Flynn’s complaint, including banning teachers from promoting Black Lives Matter to students online.
In June, Judicial Watch received records revealing Critical Race Theory instruction at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. One training slide contains a graphic titled “MODERN-DAY SLAVERY IN THE USA.” [Emphasis in original]
