By Cortez Collins and Gabe Roth

The answer from our research so far is no.

Anyone with different information is welcome to reach us at Info@FixTheCourt.com (though we care most about incidents since 1969, the year of Justice Abe Fortas’ resignation, which in many ways ushered in the modern era of executive-judicial relationships).

We do think it’s worth pointing out here one recent example of poor decision-making from a supposedly apolitical appointee for comparison’s sake — especially in terms of the disciplinary result.

Rachel Rollins was appointed by President Biden to serve as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts from 2022 to 2023 and engaged in a series of actions that violated long-standing ethical and legal norms for senior Justice Department officials that ultimately cost her the job.

In July 2022, Rollins attended a partisan political fundraiser featuring First Lady Jill Biden and run by the DNC, which is contrary to DOJ policy and ethics guidelines.

Later than month through the early fall, she improperly used her official position to influence a local DA election, disclosing confidential information to the press about a potential DOJ investigation involving the acting DA in a clear attempt to harm his electoral prospects and help her preferred candidate.

Reports from the DOJ inspector general and the Office of Special Counsel called her behavior out of bounds, with the latter saying it was a “flagrant, willful Hatch Act” violation.

These actions prompted widespread criticism, and in May 2023 she resigned.

In an opinion released this fall, the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers voted to publicly reprimand her for her conduct, though the disciplinary panel was divided on whether reprimand was sufficiently stringent. Rollins agreed to the reprimand, acknowledging her improper disclosures and misrepresentations.

This episode speaks to broader concerns about how legal actors, whether prosecutors, judges or regulators, navigate the boundary between official duties and partisan behavior.

It also lays out a path for consequences for such actions. Judges accused of misconduct, as Bove was by us last week, are also subject to public reprimands. That doesn’t sound awful, but given that only a handful of them are doled out each decade, it would be a fairly big deal. And it would be proper — frankly the floor for what the Third Circuit judicial council should do.

We wouldn’t expect Bove to resign or otherwise be forced out of his job over this, but since this is not the first violation — recall that he also appeared at an official DOJ event post-confirmation and spoke to the press about some of President Trump’s more outlandish pardons — it’s worth watching his out-of-court exploits to see if these types of issues continue to crop up.