By Gabe Roth

The Justice Department on Tuesday filed a brief in opposition in the Strickland v. Moritz case at the Supreme Court.

The Department, which represents federal judges when they’re sued (unless it’s the federal government that’s suing the judges), initially waived its right to respond, but in June, Chief Justice Roberts requested that it do so.

The filing makes some fair points about which arguments were raised and which were not during the proceedings in the lower courts. But its overall posture — that the judiciary has “robust” workplace protections for its employees — falls outside the bounds of reality.

Are things better than they were in 2017, when live-execution enthusiast Alex Kozinski was forced to resign his judgeship due to a harassment scandal? Yes. But there’s so much more work to do.

To paraphrase Justice Scalia, had I written the following sentences, found on page 12 of the brief, I would hide my head in a bag.

“A fortiori, Congress does not act unconstitutionally merely by declining to extend Title VII to judicial-branch employees, and the judiciary does not act unconstitutionally merely by choosing to provide a remedy with robust procedures, even if not the precise ones that petitioner deems essential. It is a plainly rational policy choice to distinguish judicial-branch employees from other federal employees, particularly given the separation-of-powers questions raised if Congress were to regulate a coordinate branch.”

Fix the Court supports Caryn Strickland’s claims that the judiciary’s workplace conduct remedies fall short of what’s required under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 and its subsequent amendments.

Should she lose her case, FTC will redouble its efforts, working with lawmakers and advocates in both parties, to ensure that Congress uses its power to legislate stronger anti-harassment, anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections for the more than 30,000 people who work in our federal courts.