Minnesota Federal Bankruptcy Judge To Resign Amid Misconduct Allegations
Less than a year ago, in July 2024, former Alaska federal judge Joshua Kindred resigned after the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council found that he sexually harassed his law clerks and created a hostile work environment during his five years on the bench. I was literally jolted out of bed by a late-night message from The New York Times seeking comment. Kindred’s resignation was startling — federal judges rarely relinquish lifetime appointments — and it triggered a wave of soul-searching within the legal community. This was a rare moment in which a federal judge stepped down amid misconduct allegations, perhaps the biggest judicial misconduct scandal since notorious harasser Alex Kozinski stepped down seven years earlier from the same circuit. Yet some suggested Kindred was merely a “bad apple,” and the judiciary itself cast his departure as an example of its commitment to curbing misconduct.
Recent events tell a more ominous story. Last month, National Public Radio released the results of a year-long investigation, in which 42 current and former judiciary employees described pervasive harassment, bullying, and abusive conduct by 24 federal judges appointed by both political parties. Law clerks are notoriously fearful of speaking with the press. The judiciary was big mad about the reporting, considering how hard they work to keep these issues secret and how they’ve weaponized “confidentiality” to prevent law clerks from speaking up about mistreatment. They pushed back, arguing two of the three judges profiled in the piece are no longer on the bench, as evidence they take these issues seriously and encourage the most abusive judges to step down.
The judiciary claims they’ve “strengthened protections considerably” to create safe and respectful judicial workplaces. Despite their assurances of reform, judicial leaders offered little detail about concrete steps to protect law clerks or to hold judges accountable. Indeed, the judiciary continues to rely on suspiciously low numbers of formal complaints to claim its workplace culture is thriving — when many law clerks, in reality, feel too intimidated to come forward. A curious benchmark, considering the judiciary rarely initiates an independent investigation absent a misconduct complaint initiated by a law clerk.
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) and Judicial Conference regularly point to their suspiciously low misconduct numbers — just seven Employee Dispute Resolution (EDR) complaints from law clerks over two years between 2021 and 2023, and just two Judicial Conduct and Disability (JC&D) Act complaints filed by judiciary employees (law clerks or permanent court staff) in 2024, as evidence that they do not have a widespread problem. In truth, these figures reflect a system that discourages reporting by signaling that complaints are unwelcome and unlikely to succeed. Too many clerks simply suffer in silence because they see no meaningful alternative.
A low number of misconduct complaints does not necessarily indicate a safe workplace. In fact, it often suggests reporting mechanisms are broken or nonexistent, and employees do not feel safe reporting misconduct. The judiciary fails to understand what most mistreated clerks tell me: they have not and would not report misconduct to the federal courts because they do not believe their concerns will be taken seriously and robustly investigated.
The headwinds against reporting misconduct are enormous. When clerks do speak up — filing a complaint or otherwise calling attention to misconduct — the institution often responds by quietly reassigning them to different judges, rather than addressing the root of the problem. In the most egregious cases, judges are encouraged to retire or resign instead of facing real scrutiny. But a resignation is hardly a cure if the judge remains free to mistreat new subordinates in private practice — or to punish former clerks by offering bad references or otherwise undermining their careers. Indeed, those who strive to hold abusive judges accountable can face extensive, behind-the-scenes retaliation.
And, in smaller legal markets — like the Minnesota bankruptcy bar — judges wield enormous power over clerks’ careers and reputations. The fear of retaliation or retribution by a powerful judge silences clerks from speaking up or filing complaints. Just ask them.
Today, the District of Minnesota faces its own reckoning. Less than a year after Kindred’s high-profile resignation, federal bankruptcy judge Kesha Tanabe — appointed by judicial colleagues — is attempting to resign quietly on March 31, 2025, allegedly amid serious misconduct allegations, apparently to evade accountability. Under the current application of the JC&D Act and its accompanying Rules for Judicial Conduct and Disability Proceedings, once a judge steps down, the judiciary loses jurisdiction over the judge, halting an investigation in its tracks. Disturbingly, Judge Tanabe is not the only example in this district: another Minnesota judge, Wilhelmina Wright, allegedly retired last year under similar circumstances of apparent misconduct. The pattern suggests that quiet resignations, rather than thorough investigations, have become the norm.
Rather than take this opportunity to signal a newfound commitment to transparency and accountability, the federal judiciary is, as usual, doing everything they can to keep this quiet. Not just to protect their colleague. But perhaps more importantly, the judiciary would prefer not to read another story about pervasive and unaddressed misconduct in the federal courts, one that would shine a public spotlight — again — on the outrageous lack of guardrails, accountability, reporting processes, and transparency in the federal courts. While the judiciary claims to have made changes, the series of events that allegedly led to Tanabe’s resignation, as well as the judiciary’s attempts to cover it up, suggest otherwise.
To be clear, there is no suggestion here that Tanabe’s alleged wrongdoing mirrors the same type of sexual harassment described in the Kindred case. But there is no question that both matters reflect a larger problem: judges who mistreat their staff or violate professional norms are rarely subject to meaningful discipline. More troubling still, clerks who seek accountability are sometimes urged not to file complaints — or pressured to withdraw them if they do. In some instances, those dissuading clerks from reporting are themselves judicial employees entrusted with offering impartial support. And it’s worth reiterating that judicial misconduct is a bipartisan issue: both Democratic and Republican judicial appointees mistreat their clerks, and both liberal and conservative clerks have been mistreated by powerful judges, with no legal recourse. Kindred is a Republican; Tanabe is a Democrat.
Tanabe, a liberal appointee, served for merely three years. During that time, she allegedly mistreated, fired, and retaliated against several employees — and judges typically only have two clerks and one judicial assistant at a time.
Tanabe has allegedly been under scrutiny by the Eighth Circuit for several years, though you would not know that from the press release announcing her resignation:
According to District of Minnesota Chief Judge Schiltz:
Judge Tanabe has contributed much over the past three years, in her work as a bankruptcy judge, as a frequent speaker, as a mentor to countless lawyers and judges, and as a member of our “federal family.“ We will miss Judge Tanabe, but she will resume her role as one of the leading bankruptcy attorneys in Minnesota, so we will see her often.
And, from Chief Bankruptcy Judge Constantine: “We are thankful for Judge Tanabe’s service, particularly her endeavors to educate both bench and bar.”
Despite these misleading claims, it’s my understanding that many of Tanabe’s clerks and other subordinates do not share these judges’ sentiments. Once a brave clerk raised a complaint, the judge apparently agreed to resign. While chief judges are theoretically empowered to open JC&D investigations into judges, absent formal JC&D complaints — which could result in public or private reprimand, sanction, or even impeachment — they rarely launch such investigations, and such investigations rarely lead to discipline. This court apparently opted not to even try.
These practices skew the data regarding judicial misconduct, allowing the AO to insist, mistakenly, that harassment is rare. In effect, the system protects its own at the expense of vulnerable clerks. And while the judiciary insists it has made progress, the experiences of the clerks involved in the Tanabe and Kindred matters raise real doubts that such reforms have true force.
Judges are basically immunized against accountability for misconduct. Even after they resign, they can retaliate against clerks who they believe complained. In light of the ongoing threats posed by judges even after they resign, a clerk contacted the Eighth Circuit Director of Workplace Relations (DWR), known to both dissuade clerks from filing complaints and to offer misleading advice to clerks, to express interest in also filing a JC&D complaint. The DWR dissuaded the clerk from filing in writing, stating that she did not think they needed to file a JC&D complaint because their EDR complaint was sufficient.
Yet Tanabe’s clerk, undeterred, filed anyway. But, when the clerk contacted the Eighth Circuit Clerk of Court’s Office to confirm receipt, someone in the office outrageously convinced the law clerk to withdraw the complaint. The reason: the complaint would probably be dismissed because the judge is resigning anyway.
To be clear, both the DWR’s and Clerk of Court’s Office’s actions appear to be obstruction of justice. Court employees should not weigh in on the sufficiency of a judicial misconduct complaint: that’s for the chief judge to decide. These appalling actions by federal judiciary employees offend their public framing of the courts as committed to the fair and impartial administration of justice. Perhaps it’s counterintuitive to some lawyers and law professors still claiming that the courts will save us, that judges and their defenders will hold themselves to the lowest ethical standards, not the highest. But, as someone who routinely confronts the irony between the judiciary’s public messaging and private conduct, I was outraged but not surprised to learn of this latest attempt to gaslight a vulnerable law clerk.
These actions would be reprehensible if they were a one-off. But this is just another data point in an ongoing pattern of misconduct. Clerks routinely tell me they are dissuaded by DWRs, circuit executives, and others in the judiciary from filing both EDR and JC&D Act complaints. Some clerks were even pressured to withdraw their complaints — with their jobs threatened.
In light of these revelations, we should view the federal judiciary’s 2024 JC&D complaint data (just two complaints by clerks and permanent court staff), and EDR report (only seven complaints by clerks over a two-year period), with heightened scrutiny and deep skepticism. This is how the federal judiciary keeps their misconduct data low and misleads the public — by dissuading clerks from filing complaints and pressuring them to withdraw them once filed; and by offering misleading advice to clerks about their likelihood of success in the complaint process — all while hanging threats of firings over clerks’ heads, if they complain. They utilize all avenues to chill complaints in order to immunize judges from scrutiny.
Contrary to the AO director’s dubious claims that these suspiciously low numbers suggest the judiciary does not have a misconduct problem, in fact, their low numbers are likely due to the AO’s own obstruction and misconduct, presumably to mislead the public, lawyers, and lawmakers, and to misleadingly deflate their publicly reported data. Because, were the AO to collect and publicly report data on the actual occurrence of judicial misconduct (which they possess, in an internal workplace survey whose results they refuse to release publicly), lawmakers might insist on outside oversight and haul some AO administrators before Congress to answer tough questions.
Tanabe’s resignation amid allegations of misconduct is the biggest judiciary scandal since Kindred’s resignation. Two judges resigning amid misconduct allegations within 12 months is significant: judges rarely resign and, frankly, most serve until they die, long beyond their capacity to serve. Lest you think Tanabe and Kindred are just a few “bad apples,” ask yourself: if Tanabe were a rare exception, why wouldn’t the federal judiciary take this opportunity to signal their newfound commitment to transparency and accountability by disciplining her, thereby sending a message to the legal profession that they take these issues seriously by swiftly disciplining their own? They could then point to Tanabe’s and Kindred’s discipline as evidence that no outside congressional oversight is necessary because their internal self-governance mechanisms work just fine.
I suspect the Eighth Circuit is trying to keep this quiet because they know — or at least suspect but would prefer not to acknowledge — that they have a more widespread problem. The Tanabe situation is not even an isolated incident in this court. Rather, it’s a pattern of misconduct. Federal judge Wilhelmina Wright was able to retire quietly, under similar circumstances and amid allegations of misconduct, just one year earlier.
This is just the tip of the iceberg in the federal courts. If every mistreated clerk I’ve spoken with filed a complaint, and if the judiciary swiftly and robustly investigated each one, they wouldn’t have time to do the courts’ important work because they’d spend all their time reviewing misconduct complaints! Sadly, the judiciary benefits from clerks’ silence and fear.
Tanabe is scheduled to resign on March 31, 2025. She is still on the bench. The Eighth Circuit should reject Tanabe’s resignation and open a JC&D investigation into her misconduct. The judiciary could take disciplinary action against Tanabe right now, and they should. This would send a much-needed message: wrongdoing on the bench will not be swept under the rug, and the judiciary’s professed commitment to ethical standards is more than hollow talk. But at the moment, it appears the resignation will be accepted, and the matter closed.
It is important to remember, too, that Congress has the power to impose reforms. Legislation like the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) would extend federal antidiscrimination protections to more than 30,000 exempt federal judiciary employees and revise the complaint process to allow investigations to continue even after judges step down. Congress extended these protections to itself and to the executive branch back in 1995: there is no reason judges should stand alone in an ethical blind spot. Yet lawmakers have not seized the opportunity to investigate this particular case, to hold hearings, or to demand improvements from the judiciary.
This is a rare bipartisan opportunity to solve a historically intractable issue. Yet I’ve been disheartened, after raising this with several congressional offices, to see the issue of judicial accountability fall on deaf ears. The more than 30,000 judiciary employees who support the daily functioning of our courts nationwide — yet who lack basic workplace protections — deserve better. Members of Congress could send a letter to the AO and Eighth Circuit urging them to reject Tanabe’s resignation and discipline her. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees could reintroduce — and Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, whose Eighth Circuit is the circuit at issue here — could hold a hearing on the JAA. Congress could, at a minimum, introduce legislation to amend the JC&D Act, so investigations into judges like Tanabe could continue, even after they step down to evade accountability. The answers are there; the motivation is lacking.
Judges hold unique power in our system of government: they rule on matters of profound national importance, including cases involving workplace harassment, even as they themselves remain exempt from the rules that most workplaces must follow. Until that imbalance is addressed, clerks will continue to suffer in silence, fearful of retaliation from life-tenured officials whose influence does not end when they retire.
Congress should act, at minimum, to require honest workplace surveys and annual data disclosures as a condition of the judiciary’s appropriations. The military conducts climate surveys: why shouldn’t the judiciary? Greater transparency would help the public understand the true scope of the problem — and would help protect the many capable, fair-minded judges who do treat their clerks respectfully and want no part of any cover-up.
Absent that oversight, recent events in Minnesota may fade from the public consciousness as the judge departs, leaving the root problem intact. The Legal Accountability Project (LAP) hears from clerks regularly — often years after their clerkships have ended — who still fear retribution for speaking up. Change will not come until the judiciary’s internal norms favor meaningful accountability over quiet resignation. And that requires Congress to hold the judiciary’s feet to the fire and exercise the power entrusted to it.
Every day, in courthouses nationwide, judges harass their clerks with impunity and get away with egregious misconduct. Clerks suffer in silence: years, even decades after their clerkships, they live in fear of retaliation or retribution. I hear about this often at LAP, where we’ve basically become a clearinghouse for clerks who never previously would have confided in anyone, to share their negative experiences with me.
It’s time for every lawmaker and lawyer, and frankly, some of the judges who support LAP behind the scenes, to call for change. As the events involving Kindred and Tanabe demonstrate, misconduct on the bench can arise at any time. It is a serious matter whenever it occurs, and the ramifications can echo across a clerk’s entire career. With no sign of the judiciary policing itself, and with no shortage of workable reforms ready to go, it is time for Congress to step forward and protect those who serve in the Third Branch. Silence is not neutrality — it is complicity.
Workplace harassment is always wrong. But it is particularly reprehensible when committed by life-tenured federal judges — some of the most powerful members of the federal government — who abuse their power, ruling on issues of national significance, including sexual harassment cases, while they themselves are not subject to the laws they interpret. It’s despicable for the federal judiciary to continue claiming they promote an “exemplary” workplace, while routinely shielding abusive judges from scrutiny and accountability. Right now, throughout our justice system, there is no justice for judiciary employees. But Congress can — and must — change that. Because for every Tanabe who resigns once in a blue moon, dozens do not.
Aliza Shatzman is the President and Founder of The Legal Accountability Project, a nonprofit aimed at ensuring that law clerks have positive clerkship experiences, while extending support and resources to those who do not. She regularly writes and speaks about judicial accountability and clerkships. Reach out to her via email at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter @AlizaShatzman.
