Embattled U.S. District Judge Sam Kent is an easy target these days (all previous posts here). Along those lines, Chronicle legal columnist and blogger Mary Flood makes the following statement in this blog post on the Chronicle’s latest story about the allegations against Judge Kent:
The law sees the judge as innocent until proven guilty of these allegations, though so far he faces no criminal or civil lawsuits over the matter anyway. But it is important to note that his fellow judges removed him from work (albeit with pay) for the last four months of the year and reprimanded him for sexual harassment (emphasis added).
Flood’s above assertion may be correct, but we do not know that at this time. The Judicial Council’s order certainly says no such thing. The order states that a judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent and that a special investigatory committee reviewed the allegations and expanded the investigation to review other allegations of “inappropriate behavior” toward other federal employees. The order goes on to state that, after completing the investigation, the investigative committee recommended a reprimand and other “remedial courses of action.” The Judicial Council accepted the committee’s recommendation of reprimanding Judge Kent and concluded the proceeding “because appropriate remedial action had been and will be taken, including but not limited to the Judge’s four-month leave of absence from the bench, reallocation ofthe Galveston/Houston docket and other measures.” The Judicial Council’s order also admonished Judge Kent “that his actions . . . violated the mandates of the Canons of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges and are deemed prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts and the administration of justice.”
Thus, here’s what we know. A judicial complaint alleging sexual harassment was filed against Judge Kent. An investigation ensued and was expanded beyond the allegations contained in the initial complaint to other “inappropriate behavior.” Judge Kent presumably defended himself in regard to the allegations, but he is precluded by applicable rules relating to such investigations from discussing the matter publicly. The Judicial Council reprimanded and admonished Judge Kent, but the findings of fact and conclusions of law upon which the council based its reprimand have not — and probably will never will be — made public.
Thus, at this point, stating that Judge Kent was “reprimanded for sexual harassment” is speculation. He may have been, but the reason could also have been inappropriate behavior not related to sexual harassment, such as a drinking problem or simply acting badly toward subordinates. Further legal proceedings appear to be likely, so I’m inclined to wait to see what information develops in a forum where he can defend himself before jumping to conclusions in the matter of Judge Kent.
