On December 18, 2025, The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) took a meaningful step toward real judicial accountability, filing our first Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) Act complaint against Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam. Disturbingly, this is the second misconduct complaint against Judge Merriam in fewer than four years. And it’s the first time a federal judge has been publicly reprimanded for mistreating clerks, only to engender a second misconduct complaint for similar conduct — flouting both judiciary policy and a public disciplinary order. With this complaint, LAP circumvents both congressional intransigence and judicial branch inaction.
In December 2023, Second Circuit Chief Judge Debra Livingston published a whitewashed disciplinary order disposing of the first complaint against Merriam. The laughable remedies delineated in that order — watching training videos; committing to treating clerks better; checking in with Livingston periodically; and the Director of Workplace Relations (DWR) for the circuit — a clerk point of contact — would check in with Merriam’s clerks every six months through 2025 — were toothless. It was literally the least the circuit could do.
Immediately thereafter, incoming Merriam clerks asked whether to withdraw from their clerkships. Sadly, since the order misrepresented the clerk’s allegations, cherry-picking to paint them in the worst possible light, incoming clerks were misled to believe the clerkship wouldn’t be that bad and opted to proceed anyway. Big mistake. But there’s currently no outside oversight over the judicial complaint process — Congress has, unsurprisingly, abdicated its oversight responsibility over the courts — and, like most clerk complainants, the clerk did not have a lawyer at all times. So, the circuit misled the public, painting the situation as a personality conflict between judge and clerk rather than the hostile work environment it was.
Between December 2023 and December 2025, LAP fielded troubling allegations from clerks — those who endured mistreatment, one who quit after just one month working for Merriam, and several who withdrew from clerkship offers after learning the clerkship’s realities. LAP’s complaint alleges Merriam created a hostile and toxic work environment — nothing like the exemplary workplace the federal judiciary claims to foster. Chambers conditions may have gotten worse after the public reprimand. Clerks allege Merriam routinely bullied, belittled, isolated, and dehumanized them; yelled at them; and sent unhinged emails in all capital letters. The complaint alleges Merriam’s conduct, including sudden and unpredictable outbursts, is part of an emotional rollercoaster of unpredictable mood swings.
Importantly, the complaint also alleges Second Circuit clerk points of contact — the DWR and Circuit Executive — were aware of ongoing misconduct for at least one year before this second complaint but failed to report this to Chief Judge Livingston and urge her to open a second investigation. Frankly, those who knowingly and willfully conceal information about judicial misconduct are obstructing justice. There is an enormous power disparity, not just between life-tenured federal judges and clerks, but also between clerks and judicial branch officials. Clerks are particularly vulnerable during investigations, because they typically lack legal representation, while going up against the full weight of the federal judiciary and its army of lawyers. Disturbingly, far too little about workplace conduct policies is delineated in writing. That’s by design. It’s ironic, considering how much judges love to expound on process and enforce courtroom rules. Judiciary officials regularly fail to follow their own policies or change the rules midway through: but without transparency around investigations, it can be challenging to allege procedural wrongdoing.
It appears that Livingston likely either knew or should have known about ongoing issues in Merriam’s chambers, since she allegedly met with Merriam to discuss workplace conduct, according to the 2023 order. And, Livingston supervises the DWR and Circuit Executive, who knew of the misconduct. Circuit-wide willful ignorance by those in positions of power who should know better, is shameful.
Anyone can file a JCD complaint — including law clerks, litigants, attorneys, and members of the public — alleging a “judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts.” LAP filed this complaint because we’re able to shoulder the risk that law clerks believe they cannot. Frankly, clerks don’t do their best work when they are being mercilessly bullied — risking harm to litigants who depend on orders and opinions issued from overworked and demoralized chambers. And it undermines public confidence in the courts when judges’ workplace conduct is so lawless, and when judges display such callous disregard for the laws they interpret.
Disturbingly, just two or three clerk complaints are filed each year against judges. While the federal judiciary misleadingly claims this indicates a lack of misconduct, that’s proven false by the judiciary’s own 2023 workplace conduct survey, released in March 2025. Those data indicate as many as 106 judges mistreated their clerks in 2023, yet just three clerk complaints were filed that year.
Why the discrepancy? Law clerks — and more than 30,000 federal judiciary employees — are exempt from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and all federal anti-discrimination laws, including legal protection against retaliation for reporting. It’s simple: clerks do not and will not report misconduct until they’re protected against retaliation. The judiciary vociferously opposes extending Title VII protections to the Third Branch, even while Congress extended Title VII to itself and the Executive Branch in 1995, because exempting clerks from legal protection against retaliation will also chill complaints. Judges can and do retaliate against clerks by intervening in their bar applications and by contacting employers to give negative references and blackball them from jobs. (That’s what happened to me, following my clerkship with the D.C. U.S. Attorney’s Office four years ago.)
The judicial complaint process is flawed, but it’s the system we have: using the system is how we’ll change it. Importantly, since LAP is the named complainant, Merriam’s current and former clerks will be confidential witnesses: they can speak freely with the circuit, without Merriam knowing who said what to whom, better protecting them against retaliation. Troublingly, during lengthy investigations, judges’ clerks are not typically reassigned. For example, during the year-long investigation into former Alaska federal judge Joshua Kindred, who resigned in July 2024 amid threat of further discipline, after Kindred was credibly accused of sexually harassing clerks, they were forced to continue working under him. So, LAP’s complaint requests that Merriam’s clerks be immediately reassigned to protect them, pending an investigation.
Clerks tell me Merriam should not be a judge. She cannot manage her chambers or supervise employees. But as long as judges like Merriam remain on the bench, they’ll get clerks: someone is desperate enough for the credential, or believes it won’t happen to them. In fact, several Merriam clerks didn’t think this would happen to them; wish they’d listened when warned; and wouldn’t have accepted the clerkship if they knew how bad it would be.
While federal judges enjoy life tenure “during good behavior” and can therefore only be removed by congressional impeachment, some resign amid threat of further discipline. Kindred did. I hope to see the same outcome here.
The judiciary has a harassment problem that no one cares to solve. The courts refuse to hold judges accountable for misconduct, turn a blind eye to known abuses of power, obfuscate and willfully mislead the public, and stonewall Congress. Blame also lies with presidents of both parties who’ve nominated but failed to properly vet judicial nominees — appointing them with total disregard for who they are as people and managers.
But while the judiciary is perpetrating a fraud upon the public, Congress — the branch of government empowered to act — refuses to act. While it’s easy to blame Republicans for everything that’s wrong, much responsibility lies with feckless congressional Democrats, who’ve not only abdicated their oversight responsibility over the federal courts but, frankly, do not understand what their responsibilities are. Congressional Democrats are obsessed with Trump — to the exclusion of any other issue. It’s ironic to see Democrats on the news demanding “accountability” for government actors who are “above the law” and calling for “transparency” — accountability and transparency, except for the judiciary. Democrats failed to prioritize the courts: if they had, our judiciary might actually be a trusted bulwark against creeping autocracy.
Members and their staff tell me this issue “isn’t in their legislative agenda;” they’re “too busy” to send an oversight letter (while sending letters about everything else); and “if it’s not about Trump, we won’t act.” Yet Congress has at least four tools in its toolbox — oversight, legislation, appropriations, and the bully pulpit — and none requires them to be in the majority to show some spine right now. Congress’s failure to act shields judges like Merriam from accountability and perpetuates judicial branch lawlessness.
Oversight
Any member can direct questions to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO). While members send letters about countless other topics, they have refused to do this, even after I drafted questions for them — including one member whose constituent was one of just two law clerk complainants last year.
The judiciary enjoys an outrageous lack of congressional oversight. Since it released its workplace survey results in March 2025 — on the same day a judge resigned amid misconduct allegations, not a single member has asked a single question about why as many as 106 judges committed misconduct in 2023, yet just three clerks filed complaints that year. Nor has Congress demanded to know who those judges are and why they’re not being investigated.
Democrats could hold a “shadow hearing” (chaired by just Democrats), which they’ve held on several other rule of law topics. If and when Democrats retake the majority, the House Judiciary Committee — which has apparently decided judicial branch oversight isn’t in its job description anymore — should immediately hold hearings. Majority members with subpoena power should demand notes and documents revealing systemic misconduct that the courts may have withheld. And, when Congress calls witnesses, while judiciary leadership will stonewall, underlings like DWRs will have on-the-ground information from conversations with clerks about abusive judges, and an insider’s view of leadership’s obfuscation.
Legislation
Congress should reintroduce the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA), which would finally extend Title VII and whistleblower protections to more than 30,000 exempt law clerks, permanent court staff, and federal public defenders. Congress should also reintroduce the Transparency and Responsibility in Upholding Standards in the Judiciary (TRUST) Act, which would amend the JCD Act so investigations can continue even if judges step down to evade accountability. And, Congress should attach a Title VII amendment to a mandatory spending bill (or to the judiciary’s annual budget request).
Appropriations
Congress controls the purse strings and should use the judiciary’s annual budget request as a sword and shield. Congress should at least threaten to zero out the judiciary’s budget until they implement meaningful reforms. And the Appropriations Committee should tie judiciary funding to benchmarks for progress. Last May, AO Director Robert Conrad testified before the Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee: workplace conduct was the second item in his written testimony. Yet not a single member asked about workplace conduct. Conrad will be back this spring: Congress should ask tough questions.
Bully Pulpit
Of all the tools at their disposal, this is perhaps members’ greatest untapped power. Congresspeople have huge national platforms to do new interviews, publish op-eds, and utilize social media to raise awareness, spark dialogue, and effect change. Their silence on this topic is shameful.
This year, every House member and many senators run for reelection. Congress believes they don’t have to act, because constituents don’t know the judiciary is exempt from Title VII, don’t believe this affects them, and won’t hold them accountable by demanding action or voting them out of office. Congress doesn’t understand the courts affect all of us. If you’re frustrated about the lack of accountability for judges who abuse their power — or think it defies logic that the entire federal judiciary, which interprets our laws, is exempt from all workplace anti-discrimination laws — hold your member accountable or elect someone who will act.
The judicial complaint process was not crafted with law clerks in mind. Frankly, it’s set up to shield abusive judges from accountability. But for now, it’s the system we have. I hope clerks see LAP’s complaint and are empowered to come forward, because fixing the system from the inside is how we’ll create meaningful change. Someday, the tide will turn: we’ll remember who was on the right side of history when it was hard.
It would be a stain on the judiciary to shield Judge Merriam from accountability under these circumstances, LAP’s complaint concludes. Pressuring the judiciary to act requires all of us — law clerks, law students, lawyers, members of Congress, and the press — to demand change and shine a light on misconduct that’s historically been hidden. The judiciary has long exploited clerks’ fears and benefitted from clerks’ silence. Let’s not give them that any longer.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at Aliza.Shatzman@legalaccountabilityproject.org and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
The post Second Circuit Judge Accused Of Bullying Her Law Clerks — Again appeared first on Above the Law.