Judicial Impropriety in the U.S. Supreme Court System
This paper examines judicial impropriety in the United States judicial system, focusing on its causes, existing legal remedies, and the inadequacy of current oversight mechanisms. It begins by defining judicial impropriety and illustrating the problem through notable cases, such as Judge Sharon Keller's controversial courtroom closure. The paper then analyzes how the electoral method of selecting judges creates political and financial conflicts of interest, and proposes a merit-based appointment committee as an alternative. It further evaluates constitutional remedies and review boards, argues that these mechanisms fall short, and recommends legislative reforms — including stricter penalties and expanded prosecutorial powers for oversight boards — to more effectively deter and address judicial misconduct.
- Introduction to Judicial Impropriety: Definition and examples of judicial misconduct
- How Judicial Elections Compromise Objectivity: Electoral process as a root cause of bias
- Constitutional Remedies and Oversight Mechanisms: Existing legal protections and appeal processes
- Inadequacy of Existing Legal Consequences: Why current oversight mechanisms fall short
- Proposed Reforms to Address Judicial Misconduct: Legislative and policy reforms recommended
- Conclusion: Summary of findings and call for reform
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in a concrete real-world example — Judge Sharon Keller's courtroom closure — before moving into structural analysis, giving abstract concepts immediate credibility.
- It presents a balanced cause-and-solution structure: for each problem identified (electoral influence, weak review boards), a corresponding reform is proposed, creating logical coherence throughout.
- The paper anticipates and addresses a counterargument — the risk of graft within an appointment committee — rather than ignoring potential weaknesses in its own proposal.
Key academic technique demonstrated
This paper demonstrates the use of case law citation to anchor policy arguments. By referencing Scheuer v. Rhodes (1974) and U.S.C. 372(c), the writer moves beyond opinion to show that proposed reforms align with, or are necessitated by, existing legal frameworks. This technique lends credibility and precision to what might otherwise read as general advocacy.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a definition and illustrative example, then identifies the root cause (judicial elections) and proposes a remedy (appointment committees). It transitions to an evaluation of existing constitutional safeguards and finds them inadequate, before recommending two specific reforms: stronger legislative penalties and expanded investigative board powers. The conclusion synthesizes all major threads. The argument flows in a clear problem–evaluation–solution pattern appropriate for an undergraduate law or political science course.
Introduction to Judicial Impropriety
A judicial impropriety occurs when a judge disregards existing legal standards expected of them while discharging their roles during judicial proceedings. For instance, a judge who does not base his or her ruling on the evidence provided and the applicable laws — but instead disregards a defendant while giving undue advantage to the prosecutor or litigant — commits judicial impropriety (Leyland & Anthony, 2016). Judicial impropriety has been reported in the United States judiciary on several occasions. For instance, Judge Sharon Keller of the Court of Appeals in Texas was accused of judicial impropriety when she ordered the closure of the courtroom at 5 p.m., doing so with the intention of blocking an appeal filed by a person sentenced to execution (Equal Justice Initiative, 2015). Such cases exemplify the extent of judicial impropriety in the American judicial system.
References
Carmona, C. G. (2014). Enhancing the capacity of judges to resolve election disputes. SSRN Electronic Journal, 1(2), 112–135.
Equal Justice Initiative. (2015). Arkansas Supreme Court holds Miller v. Alabama is retroactive. Equal Justice Initiative. Retrieved from https://eji.org/news/arkansas-holds-miller-v-alabama-is-retroactive
Faragher, C. (2015). Grounds for judicial review: Procedural impropriety, natural justice, and legitimate expectation. Public Law Concentrate, 165–178.
Leyland, P., & Anthony, G. (2016). Procedural impropriety II: Common law rules. In Textbook on administrative law (Draft, pp. 394–440).
Sharpe, S. (2010). Judicial discretion and investigative impropriety. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 1(2), 149–158.
Taylor, N., & Denyer, J. R. (2014). Judicial management of juror impropriety. The Journal of Criminal Law, 78(1), 43–64.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.