HR 1811119th CongressIn Committee

Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2025

Introduced: Mar 3, 2025

Standard Summary

Comprehensive overview in 1-2 paragraphs

Judicial Ethics Enforcement Act of 2025 would create the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch, an independent oversight office within the federal judiciary (excluding all functions of the Supreme Court from its normal investigations, but with a pathway to address Supreme Court misconduct in certain circumstances). The Inspector General (IG) would be appointed by the Chief Justice after consulting with the leaders of both chambers, serve a 4-year term (renewable), and be removable by the Chief Justice with reasons provided to Congress. The IG would conduct investigations of alleged misconduct in the federal judiciary (and related misconduct in the Supreme Court as needed), supervise audits, root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and suggest changes to laws or regulations governing the judiciary. The office would have broad investigative powers (including subpoenas and access to records from key judicial bodies) but would be limited from judging the merits of judicial decisions or punishing judges. It also creates whistleblower protections for judiciary employees and requires annual and special reports to Congress and the Chief Justice, with a duty to inform the Attorney General if criminal federal law violations are suspected.

Key Points

1Establishment and appointment
2- Creates the Office of Inspector General for the Judicial Branch (Chapter 60, Part III of Title 28).
3- IG appointed by the Chief Justice after consultation with Senate majority and minority leaders and House Speaker and minority leader; serves 4-year terms and can be reappointed; removal requires explanation to Congress.
4Duties
5- Investigate alleged misconduct in the federal judiciary (excluding the Supreme Court) and any Supreme Court misconduct that requires oversight by the judiciary or Congress.
6- Conduct and supervise audits, investigations, prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; recommend legal or regulatory changes.
7Powers
8- Broad investigative tools: subpoenas, testimony, production of records, oaths; access to information from federal, state, and local entities, and from judicial bodies (Judicial Conference, circuit judicial councils, Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission).
9- Hire staff and enter into contracts for audits and studies; use official channels for services and payroll as appropriate.
10Limitations
11- Cannot investigate or review matters directly related to the merits of a judge’s decision or discipline/punish a judge or court.
12- For Chapter 16 matters, cannot begin an investigation until petition denials by a judicial council or referral to the Judicial Conference.
13Reporting
14- Must publish annual reports to the Chief Justice and Congress; can issue prompt reports on matters needing action.
15- May classify parts of a report as sensitive; Congress can receive those portions in a closed session.
16- Must promptly inform the Attorney General if there are reasonable grounds to believe a federal crime has occurred.
17Whistleblower protections
18- Prohibits retaliation against employees for providing information or assisting in investigations; allows civil action for relief in cases of retaliation.
19Implementation and status
20- Adds a new chapter to the Part III table of chapters in Title 28 to reflect the new Office.

Impact Areas

Primary group/area affected- Federal judiciary and its staff (including judges and court personnel) would be subject to enhanced oversight, investigations (excluding merits of rulings), and potential changes in procedures and accountability mechanisms.Secondary group/area affected- Supreme Court matters: misconduct involving justices or the Supreme Court could be investigated if it requires oversight or action by the judiciary or Congress, subject to the preconditions in the bill (e.g., referral or denial by relevant councils/conferences).- Judicial Conference, circuit judicial councils, Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, U.S. Sentencing Commission, and other internal judiciary entities, which would interact with the IG and provide information.Additional impacts- Congress and the Chief Justice would gain new channels of information and accountability, potentially affecting legislative and executive oversight of the judiciary.- Protection against retaliation for whistleblowers in the judicial branch could influence reporting of misconduct and internal culture.- Potential costs and budget considerations to fund the new Office (subject to appropriation), and possible changes to how investigations and audits are staffed and conducted.

Generated by gpt-5-nano on Nov 1, 2025