By Michael Phillips | NYBayNews
The federal judiciary enjoys immense power, lifetime tenure, and near-total independence. Those features are essential to judicial independence—but they also demand rigorous internal accountability. A new misconduct complaint involving Sarah A.L. Merriam, a U.S. Court of Appeals judge serving on the Second Circuit, raises serious questions about whether that accountability is working as intended.
According to reporting by the Hartford Courant and echoed by NPR, Reuters, and legal outlets, multiple former law clerks accuse Judge Merriam of intimidation, humiliation, and bullying inside her chambers. The complaint was filed by the Legal Accountability Project (LAP), a nonprofit that advocates for expanded workplace protections for judicial employees.
What makes this case unusual—and unsettling—is that it is not the first complaint. A prior inquiry in 2022, conducted after Merriam’s elevation to the Second Circuit, found her management style to be “overly harsh.” She agreed to counseling and training as a corrective measure. Now, just a few years later, clerks allege the same conduct continues.
Power Without Recourse
Law clerks occupy one of the most precarious positions in the legal profession. Clerkships are prestigious, career-defining roles—but clerks are also uniquely vulnerable. Unlike most federal employees, they lack full Title VII protections and have limited avenues to report abuse without risking their careers.
That imbalance is at the heart of this controversy. Clerks cited yelling, berating, unpredictable outbursts, and all-capital-letter emails described as “unhinged.” Some reportedly quit within weeks; others declined clerkship offers outright after hearing about conditions in the chambers.
Whether every allegation is ultimately substantiated is for the judiciary to determine. But the pattern alone—particularly after prior remediation—demands scrutiny.
Silence From the Bench
As of January 1, neither Judge Merriam nor the Second Circuit has offered a public response. That silence may be procedurally standard, but it fuels public unease. Courts routinely demand transparency and accountability from other branches of government. When judges close ranks, it undermines confidence in the system they oversee.
Equally troubling is the judiciary’s reliance on self-policing. Internal inquiries are confidential. Outcomes are rarely disclosed. Even when misconduct is confirmed, consequences are often opaque or limited. For an institution that adjudicates workplace harassment claims across the country, that double standard is hard to ignore.
Advocacy or Accountability?
It is also fair to note that LAP is not a neutral actor. The organization, led by former clerk Aliza Shatzman, is actively campaigning for the Judiciary Accountability Act, which would extend civil rights protections to judicial employees and allow lawsuits against judges.
That advocacy does not invalidate the clerks’ claims—but it does add context. This complaint is part of a broader push to reform how the judiciary handles internal misconduct. Supporters see that as overdue; critics worry about politicizing judicial oversight.
Both concerns can be true at once.
A Broader Test for the Courts
Judge Merriam was appointed by President Joe Biden and has prior ties to Democratic politics, but this should not be framed as a partisan issue. Conservative and liberal judges alike wield extraordinary authority over their staffs. The question is not ideology—it is accountability.
If the allegations are accurate, clerks deserve protection. If they are exaggerated, Judge Merriam deserves a fair and transparent process to clear her name. What the public should not accept is a system where repeat complaints vanish behind closed doors.
The judiciary depends on trust. That trust erodes when those entrusted with enforcing the law appear insulated from it. How the Second Circuit handles this case will send a powerful signal—not just to clerks, but to the public the courts are sworn to serve.
New York Bay News 
Leave a comment