In December, I wrote about a misconduct complaint filed against Judge Stephen Vaden of the Court of International Trade. The complaint charged that the Columbia boycott violated the code of judicial ethics.
Today, the Seventh Circuit Judicial Council dismissed that complaint. Here is the crux of the analysis concerning the boycott:
Except to the extent prohibited by these regulations and guidelines, judges have wide discretion to establish their own screening and selection criteria in appointing law clerks. This latitude permits judges to make distinctions among applicants based on their own determinations of the relevant criteria or qualifications, including where the applicants were educated. Some judges only hire graduates of certain law schools. Some tailor their preferences to the specific needs of their court or chambers—for example, by looking for candidates from law schools with excellent writing or trial advocacy programs or strong core curricula in relevant subject areas. Relatedly, some judges only consider candidates with a GPA in the top 10 or 20 percent of their law-school class (or some other academic cutoff). Some require membership in the law review or moot court team. Others prioritize candidates from law schools in their state or circuit.
In the same way, a judge may refuse to hire law clerks from a law school or university that has, in the judge's view, failed to foster important aspects of higher education like civility in discourse, respect for freedom of speech, and viewpoint nondiscrimination. Accordingly, the law-clerk hiring boycott is neither inconsistent with the integrity of the judicial office nor likely to diminish public confidence in the judiciary.
