The numbers bear out that this is an issue for Democratic and Republican appointees alike

As the judiciary posts more financial disclosures in its online database, we’re learning more about the expensive, unnecessary and often unusual gifts that lower court judges have recently received, underscoring the need for Congress to pass a third branch gift ban.

The gifts — we’re highlighting 80 of them today identified by FTC law clerk Manny Marotta (fifth tab here), 78 of which were from 2023 — include an expensive boat trip, cash, jewelry, clothing, tickets to concerts and sporting events, vacation home and hotel stays and custom skis — i.e., freebies judges should not be accepting in general and especially amid growing public concern over judicial ethics.

Of the 54 gifts accepted by presidential appointees, 27 were taken by Republican appointees, and 27 were taken by Democratic appointees. Twenty-six of the 80 were accepted by magistrate or bankruptcy judges. In a similar report issued in June, FTC found that of the 75 gifts identified, 33 were accepted by Republican appointees, 30 by Democratic appointees and 12 by magistrate or bankruptcy judges.

With more than 6,300 disclosures in the database, the goal is not to review every disclosure but to identify unnecessary or unusual gifts as a means of convincing judges and justices to accept fewer of them or to encourage legislation to ban them.

Members of Congress and executive branch employees can’t accept gifts worth more than $20 or more than $50, depending on the office, which for all intents and purposes amounts to a gift ban. There are few limits placed on gift acceptance for judicial officers, who in most cases don’t even have to report gifts valued at $479 or less.

“Judges are just as corruptible as any other public servant, so it’s a real head-scratcher as to why they’re exempted from the gift limits imposed for the other branches,” FTC’s Gabe Roth said. “This problem is eminently fixable, and we look forward to working with members of Congress in both parties to do so, as the numbers bear out that this is equally a concern for Democratic and Republican appointees.”

FTC categorized 14 of the 80 newly-revealed gifts as “a problem” (red highlight), due to their high value, potential conflicts with the source, or redacted details about the gift or source. We rated 52 as “pay your own way” (yellow) and include items that judges easily could have paid for themselves, such as travel, tickets and personal items like clothing, jewelry or alcohol. We rated eight as “likely okay” (green), meaning they either have little intrinsic value or were gifted by a non-spouse partner or in support of legitimate judicial activities. Finally, we rated six as “likely not a gift,” suggesting that the judges may have misclassified them on their disclosures.

Some of the more concerning gifts:
D. Ore. Judge Karin Immergut disclosed that in 2023 “[M]y [REDACTED] and I were invited to join [Gordon] Sondland [REDACTED] on a one-week boat trip.” Immergut valued the trip at $80,000,and the source, Gordon Sondland, was the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. during the first Trump administration, who’s fallen out and now back in favor with the President. Sondland gained a reputation for indiscretion and taking trips abroad without disclosing them to his staff during his government service. At least this trip was disclosed where it needed to be.

Second Circuit Judge Sarah Merriam reported that she received “jewelry” “as a birthday gift” in 2023 valued at $2,500 but redacted the source. Although this could have come from a partner (Merriam appears to be unmarried, and we couldn’t confirm whether she’s dating anyone), without an explanatory note her secrecy raises concerns.

N.D. Ga. Chief Judge Timothy Batten again disclosed the acceptance of $24,000 in cash from Medicraft Enterprises, a medical device company based in India. (He received $24,000 from Medicraft in 2022 and $4,000 from the company in 2021, and he told Bloomberg Law in 2024 it’s owned by a close friend who hasn’t had business before his court.) As he did in 2022, Batten accepted a one-week stay in Amelia Island, Fla., condo from his friend and former law partner, John Christy, valued at $5,000. A prolific receiver of gifts, Batten accepted $9,050 worth of quail-hunting trips from 2008 to 2012.

Some gift disclosures were incomprehensible. D. N.J. Bankruptcy Judge Stacey Meisel, for example, disclosed two gifts involving just two words: “USED PERSONALTY [sic].” Meisel valued these gifts at $1,000 and $2,500, for a combined $3,500, but her description offers no transparency. The source, Stacey Levy, is unknown, as it’s a fairly common name.

Finally, Tenth Circuit Judge Tim Tymkovich disclosed some 2023 gifts not on his annual report but rather on a Federalist Society podcast last month. As part of the 20th anniversary celebration of his investiture, Tymkovich received from former law clerks a pair of custom skis, a personalized bottle of whiskey, two personalized coffee mugs and a custom bobblehead. FTC estimates the combined value of these gifts to be at least $1,190.

Tymkovich defended accepting and not reporting the gifts by claiming that judges are permitted to accept gifts “made in connection with a special occasion.” Given the fact that custom skis cost more than $480 and that many of the gift-givers are very likely practicing attorneys, Tymkovich should have, for transparency’s sake, included that gift (if not all four of them) on his disclosure, along with the sources.

Two frequent categories in the new gift revelations are vacation rentals (13 instances) and sporting event tickets (12), displaying the degree to which judges enjoy being wined and dined, even though each makes upwards of a quarter million dollars a year and can pay for, say, their own hotel stays and football seats.

Last Congress, a bicameral bill called the High Court Gift Ban Act was introduced to prohibit lower court judges  and justices from accepting gifts greater than $50 in value and no more than $100 worth of gifts from a single source in a calendar year. The language in the bill was modeled after the gift rules that have long existed in the House and Senate.