Despite all the attention of the US Supreme Court’s need for stronger ethical rules, ethical scandals are not limited to federal justice. Supreme Court judges in several states have been investigating allegations of mismanagement and even corruption recently. Like the federal system, transparent and enforceable ethical rules and procedures are important to maintaining public trust in the judicial and courts that function properly.
Most importantly, New Hampshire Supreme Court Judge Anna Barbara Hunts Marconi has been charged with multiple charges, including two felony counts attempting to commit inappropriate influence and solicitation. These charges stem from allegations that she obstructed a criminal investigation into her husband, the state port and port supervisor Geno Marconi.
Hunts Marconi is allegedly pressured Gov. Chris Sununu to stop her husband’s investigation, claiming it was biased and obstructing judicial liability. She was arrested in state court in November and denied any misconduct. She demanded that her charges be dismissed, citing her immunity from justice and First Amendment protections. The judge denied her request and the lawsuit against her is moving forward. If convicted, she could face substantial penalties, including prison time and fines. Her husband has not been criminally charged.
The state’s Judicial Action Committee has launched a related disciplinary investigation into Hunts Marconi’s conduct and is currently on leave from court.
Most judicial ethics scandals do not rise to the level of criminal charges, but they still undermine public confidence in the courts. In March, an Arkansas Corporate Affairs report found that Chief Karen Baker “appears to target female employees of color” and “showed his intention to retaliate based on his perception of the way employees vote.” The report is the latest development in a long, offensive dispute involving almost all justice in the Arkansas High Court.
The conflict began with Arkansas Business The journalist submitted a record request in August for an email exchanged between Judge Courtney Hudson and former director of former Specialist Action Office Lisa Ballard. Ballard was fired from the office in May 2024. The office administers judicial conduct between justice and its staff of the Arkansas Supreme Court. The status of her dismissal is unknown.
Hudson opposed the release of the email, citing exemptions from requests for public records of judicial communications, but five of the seven High Court Justice voted to make the email public were voted as an internal decision rather than part of the lawsuit. Hudson ultimately provided Ballard’s email, but withheld his own response, claiming he was exempt. The released email reveals the mundane dispute of disputing court credit card use, pay debate and relocation of professional action offices. Hudson filed a lawsuit to block further disclosure, but her colleagues dismissed it.
In January, Baker became the new Supreme Court judge of the Arkansas Supreme Court, and soon tried to fire 10 employees of the Court’s Administrative Office, a state agency supporting Arkansas’ judiciary. Baker’s fellow judge disagreed, saying that she lacked the authority to fire employees without agreeing to the other courts.
Six of the seven Arkansas Supreme Court have been featured on the state’s Judicial Discipline Panel by fellow justice or other judicial employees since August.
In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a rare public condemnation of former Supreme Court judge Nathan Court for his ability and enthusiastic failure to carry out his judicial and administrative duties. The accusations were related to the approval of a multi-million dollar contract with a judicial employee after it was found to have forged information about a refund request. The state ethics committee said Court acted on recommendations with fellow judicial officers, non-counsel experts, and attorney representatives, but still found Court’s decision on the contract was in violation of Colorado Judicial Act.
In January 2025, less than two years later, a report by the Colorado Judicial and Disciplinary Committee revealed ongoing ethical and procedural failures within state judiciary, including a widespread and repeated failure to submit personal financial disclosures. “This judicial situation in Colorado has produced a generalized appearance of fraud,” the committee wrote.
In November, Colorado voters passed voting measures and established an independent Judicial Supervisory Board to better discipline rules-breaking judges. The amendment specified that, instead of creating a 12-person board for a judicial discipline case, such cases must be made public once formal proceedings have begun, rather than maintaining confidentiality throughout the process.
Colorado is not the only state working to reform the state’s judicial ethics rules and procedures. The Michigan Supreme Court said in July it was considering significantly increasing the amount of information that judges and lower court judges need to include in their annual disclosures. In August, the Vermont Supreme Court justice showed a similar review was approaching. Last month, the West Virginia Supreme Court appointed a committee to propose updates on state judicial acts.
The American Bar Association issues model codes for judicial acts and updates them regularly. Some of these have been adopted by many states as guidelines or rules for judicial litigation. State ethics codes that match the model code often include factors such as defining judicial independence, providing guidelines for judicial competence and validity, and naming specific activities that violate judicial independence. Using the language of model code serves as a useful starting point for states seeking to improve judicial ethics.
States across the country must ensure that their judicial departments are even avoiding the emergence of fraud. A healthy judiciary promotes democracy and the rule of law, and achieving it depends on the trust of the people.
Manny Marotta is a legal and political journalist who contributed articles to jurists, hills, business insiders and other outlets. He is currently the legal clerk amending the courts and conducts legal research and analysis of judicial and political developments.
Suggested Quote: Manny Marotta, State Supreme Court Justice and Ethics Survey, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,