Info For Journalists

Since 1998, a liberal activist organization, the Community Rights Counsel, funded largely by George Soros, has been generating financial support by discrediting FREE’s conference series for federal judges. Their claims are a mix of distortions and outright lies.

The CRC is a “public interest” law firm whose viewpoint presupposes that “community rights” trump individual rights and liberties. For example, the CRC seeks to erode private property rights by showing state and local governments how to avoid, litigate, and defeat takings challenges to land use laws.

In 2005, James Loken, Chief Judge of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed a “judicial misconduct” complaint filed by the CRC against Danny J. Boggs, Chief Judge of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and a member of FREE’s board.

The CRC alleged that Judge Boggs’ service on the Board of Trustees constituted “conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” Judge Loken, after reviewing two CRC reports attacking FREE, FREE’s web site and literature, a recent audit of FREE’s conferences by two former U.S. Attorneys, and relevant case law and Codes of Judicial Conduct, found that the CRC, rather than Judge Boggs, was “undermining public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” Additionally, Judge Loken said of the CRC charges, “these allegations typify the character assassination that is all too common in our Nation’s Capital, much of it intended to further the accuser’s legislative agenda.”

In his dismissal, Judge Loken carefully responded to the specific complaints made against Judge Boggs by the CRC. In response to the allegation that FREE and its conferences are biased, Judge Loken wrote that none of the materials the CRC provided cast doubt on Judge Boggs’ statement that FREE takes no official positions “nor do the materials I have reviewed support the complaint’s assertion that FREE seminars are nothing more than a one-sided diatribe against federal environmental laws.”

Judge Loken answered the CRC’s allegation that FREE is funded by corporations whose interests are served by the conferences by writing that “the complaint ... lacks any factual support for the claims that FREE is overly dependent on any source of funding, that parties to environmental litigation are funding FREE’s judicial seminars, or that FREE is the captive of any donor.

The CRC's main concern is that the education FREE and other institutes offer for federal judges weakens our democratic institutions and compromises the integrity of the federal judiciary. They are wrong.

Many non-governmental institutions offer independent educational programs for the federal judiciary. Such organizations include the American Bar Association, Princeton University, the Institute for Judicial Administration at New York University School of Law, and Yale University, among others. The programs span the realm of academic thought and expertise. To state that educational programs for judges are "breeding a new conservative judicial activism," as the CRC claims, wholly ignores the scope of offerings available to judges.

In 1980, the Federal Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Judicial Conference issued an opinion that speaks directly to the question of whether judges "may with propriety" attend educational seminars and have their expenses paid by the sponsoring organizations. In the past twenty-four years the opinion, Number 67, has undergone only minor revision. The relevant language states:

The education of judges in various academic and law-related disciplines serves the public interest. That a lecture or seminar may emphasize a particular viewpoint or school of thought does not necessarily preclude a judge from attending. Judges are continually exposed to competing views and arguments and are trained to consider and analyze them.

This language not only emphasizes the importance of continuing education for judges, but also indicates that it is important for judges to hear different and competing viewpoints. Without such a diversity of opinions to choose from, members of our judiciary would be taught, but not educated.

Evaluations of FREE's Programs
Responses to Our Critics