Time to End the Shroud of Secrecy of the Federal Court System

Would judges behave so badly if cameras--or even microphones--were in every federal courtroom? Possibly--but it's time to find out.

The country, according to Zia Faruqui, “is past the point of Constitutional crisis.” Government officials are “past the Rubicon” by abusing their power for social media clicks and “stats for press releases,” Faruqui raged on Thursday afternoon. The Department of Justice is “past that point…of losing credibility” and playing “cops and robbers like children.”

Faruqui concluded his rant: “It’s September 4…as of now we still have a Constitutional democracy.”

Those accusations were not made on X or on the set of MSNBC. And Zia Faruqui is not a Democratic candidate for office or an online Democratic Party influencer—he is a federal magistrate judge and his unhinged statements were made in a federal courtroom in Washington, D.C.

What prompted Faruqui’s tirade was the case of Edward Dana, a career criminal with nine convictions and 23 arrests who was on probation at the time of his arrest on the evening of August 17. In the midst of another violent act—vandalizing a restaurant while intoxicated that evening—Dana told police he wanted to “kill the president.” Jeanine Pirro, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, sought to indict Dana on one count of violating 18 U.S.C. 871, making threats against the president. (Dana was arrested on the federal charge on August 21 and released on August 22 by one of Faruqui’s colleagues despite Dana’s long record.)

Pirro did not drop the case due to lack of evidence; she was again forced to resort to a misdemeanor charge after another D.C. grand jury refused to bring a felony indictment sought by the Trump DOJ—something Faruqui misrepresented in his meltdown.

But Faruqui’s conduct is just one more example of judges acting badly in the era of Trump. Earlier in the day, NBC News published a jaw dropping piece featuring comments by a dozen unnamed federal judges who slammed the Supreme Court for overturning lower court decisions related to the Trump administration without enough explanation why.

“With tensions so high, four of the judges said they believe the Supreme Court and specifically Roberts, the head of the judiciary, should do more to defend the courts,” NBC News reporter Ken Dilanian wrote. One judge complained Supreme Court justices “don’t have our backs.” Another said SCOTUS’ decisions in favor of the administration help the president “undermin[e] the lower courts and leave judges feel “thrown under the bus.”

Take Off the Black Robe and Look in the Mirror, Your Honor

But if any party is responsible for the cratering trust in the federal judiciary, it is the judges themselves, collectively bringing dishonor to “Your Honor.”

Not only are courts almost uniformly halting administration policies with little to no forethought or deliberation, judges routinely make superfluous political statements that demonstrate the very bias they continue to claim is nonexistent.

Since Trump took office, at least two federal judges have accused the president of acting like a “king.” Others have suggested he is a racist, a bully, an autocrat, and lawless, to name a few. In fact, the New York Times recently documented inflammatory statements made by dozens of federal judges over the past several months.

And their unhinged outbursts aren’t the only problem. Judicial overreach in some cases has resulted in harsh condemnation from a handful of more thoughtful judges; just this week, Andrew Oldham, a Trump appointee on the 5th Circuit of Appeals, denounced the judiciary’s boundary-breaking behavior as “transmogrif[ying] the least-dangerous branch into robed crusaders who get to playact as multitudinous Commanders in Chief.”

Last month, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch noted a pattern of judicial insubordination. “So this is now the third time in a matter of weeks this Court has had to intercede in a case ‘squarely controlled’ by one of its precedents,” Gorsuch wrote in an August 21 opinion. “All these interventions should have been unnecessary, but together they underscore a basic tenet of our judicial system: Whatever their own views, judges are duty-bound to respect ‘the hierarchy of the federal court system created by the Constitution and Congress. Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them.”

Access for All

So, what is the solution? Republicans in Congress show little appetite for aggressively confronting such inexcusable misconduct outside of harshly-written letters and social media posts. Even the most egregious examples of bias—thinking here of course of Jeb Boasberg, the powerful chief judge of the D.C. district court—isn’t enough for House Republicans to begin an impeachment inquiry.

At the very least, Republicans should act as the disinfectant for the shadowy existence of the third branch of government: bring much needed and nearly nonexistent sunshine to the federal bench, particularly at the district court level.

There is no reason why at least audio access is not available in every federal courtroom. Oral arguments at both the appellate level and at the Supreme Court are live streamed; some appellate courts even provide a video feed of the proceedings.

Why are taxpayers prevented from watching, or at the very least, hearing, what happens in federal courtrooms? Judges are not entitled to privacy from the public eye; to the contrary, given their lifelong job security and near-total insularity, judges should receive more scrutiny, not less.

Concerns about protecting the anonymity of jurors are cured by offering audio only—which is how I covered both federal trials for the Whitmer fednapping hoax—or by aiming cameras only at the judge.

Further, all government briefs should be made available free of charge. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on court documents, including those prepared by the DOJ. Those filings, including court transcripts, are public documents paid for by U.S. taxpayers. Every single one should be uploaded to a government website at no cost.

If a camera or microphone were installed in Judge Faruqui’s courtroom, would he have made those same remarks? Would he have put his childish, and partisan, temper tantrum on display for millions of Americans to watch—or worse, turned into a humiliating Tik Tok?

Perhaps. But it is long past time to open up America’s secret chambers. If sunshine is the best disinfectant, no institution is more in need of some strong UV rays then the federal judiciary.