Introduction
The judiciary in the United States is often heralded as a cornerstone of democracy, tasked with upholding the Constitution and ensuring justice is administered fairly. However, there is a glaring issue when judges commit dereliction of duty or derogate their responsibilities without facing significant consequences. In fact, under international law, derogation—the temporary suspension of obligations—is not permitted in matters of human rights, yet judges in the U.S. frequently act with impunity, often sheltered by the very system meant to check their actions.
This lack of accountability stands in direct violation of international norms and undermines the credibility of a nation that claims to champion “law and order.” It’s time for judges in the United States to face severe penalties, pains, and repercussions for knowingly engaging in such behavior.
For example, Superior Court of Maricopa County Judge George H. Foster, Jr. is evidenced in knowingly engaged in derogation of his duties, the legal process and rights afforded to defendants, yet he clearly violated me in my case by assisting the State to obtain, maintain and sustain a wrongful and unlawful conviction. One can only assume that he has done this before in countless other cases where the State protects this ‘criminal’.
Derogation: A Breach of International Law
Under international human rights law, derogation is heavily restricted. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the U.S. is a party, allows states to temporarily derogate from certain obligations only in times of emergency and under strict conditions. Even then, some rights—such as the right to life, freedom from torture, and the right to a fair trial—cannot be suspended.
The U.S. judiciary consistently violates this principle when judges act outside the scope of their duty, neglect procedural safeguards, or engage in bias without facing substantive consequences. Whether through questionable rulings or failure to protect basic human rights, these actions are a form of derogation, no less severe than any state-sanctioned breach of duty in other parts of the world.
The ICCPR and Judicial Responsibility
The ICCPR, adopted in 1966 and ratified by the U.S. in 1992, sets out clear expectations for judicial integrity and human rights protections. Article 14 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. U.S. judges are, by default, required to uphold these international standards. When they fail to do so—whether through deliberate misconduct or dereliction of duty—the U.S. is violating its international obligations.
Moreover, Article 2 of the ICCPR obliges signatories to ensure that anyone whose rights or freedoms are violated has access to an effective remedy. However, in practice, judicial misconduct is rarely met with appropriate disciplinary actions in the U.S. The system is designed to shield judges from meaningful repercussions, whether through judicial immunity or the lengthy, often ineffective process of impeachment.
The Problem of Judicial Immunity
One of the reasons U.S. judges can act with impunity is the doctrine of judicial immunity. This legal principle protects judges from personal liability for their judicial actions, even if those actions are conducted in bad faith or with malicious intent. While this doctrine was intended to allow judges to make impartial decisions without fear of personal retribution, it has also created a system where judges can abuse their power without facing consequences.
This is a stark contrast to international law, where accountability mechanisms, including judicial oversight bodies like the European Court of Human Rights, ensure that judges who violate their obligations are held accountable. The U.S. judiciary, by contrast, is in direct violation of the global consensus that holds judges responsible for their actions. By failing to penalize judicial misconduct, the U.S. perpetuates a system that undermines human rights and the rule of law.
“It is unacceptable that judges in the United States can flagrantly ignore international human rights law without facing any meaningful consequences. Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the U.S. is bound to ensure fair trials and judicial integrity. Yet, a judiciary that consistently violates these principles with impunity can only be designated a criminal enterprise.”
– Ewing Redmond Samuels III
Case Study: The U.S. Violating International Norms
A recent example of U.S. judges derogating their duty without consequence is seen in the handling of the Guantanamo Bay detainees. Multiple international bodies, including the United Nations Human Rights Council, have condemned the U.S. judicial system for failing to ensure fair trials and humane treatment of detainees. Despite widespread calls for accountability, judges who oversee these cases have been complicit in upholding indefinite detentions without due process—clear violations of Article 14 of the ICCPR.
In fact, a 2020 report from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture directly criticized the U.S. judiciary for turning a blind eye to human rights abuses within its own system. The international community has repeatedly called for the U.S. to bring its judicial practices in line with international law, yet American judges continue to act in violation of these standards with virtually no repercussions.
The Double Standard: U.S. Hypocrisy in the Name of Law and Order
The U.S. often positions itself as a global enforcer of human rights, frequently imposing sanctions and issuing condemnations when other countries violate international law. Yet, when it comes to its own judiciary, the U.S. blatantly disregards the same principles it demands from others. This hypocrisy is most evident in how the U.S. government and judicial system defend their actions “in the name of law and order” when it suits their interests.
For instance, the U.S. government frequently justifies the overreach of its judiciary and law enforcement by invoking the need for national security, especially in cases involving terrorism or immigration. The Patriot Act, for example, enabled judges to authorize surveillance measures that violated the rights of countless individuals, all in the name of national security. Such actions were condemned internationally, yet U.S. judges who approved these violations faced no penalties.
This selective application of the law exposes a fundamental flaw in the U.S. legal system: judges are shielded when their actions align with government interests, even when those actions are in direct violation of international law.
The Need for Judicial Accountability
It is crucial to hold U.S. judges accountable for their actions, not just under domestic law but also under international law. The U.S. judiciary must be subject to the same standards as their global counterparts. This could involve:
- Stricter oversight mechanisms for judges, ensuring that cases of judicial misconduct are investigated thoroughly and impartially.
- Penalties for judges found to have derogated their duties, including suspension, removal from office, and, in extreme cases, criminal charges.
- Increased transparency, allowing the public to see how judicial decisions are made and holding judges accountable for their rulings.
- Adopting international human rights frameworks that provide concrete protections for individuals subjected to judicial overreach or misconduct.
Conclusion: The United States’ Obligation to the Global Consensus
The U.S. judiciary is not above international law. The ICCPR and other human rights treaties are not suggestions; they are binding legal obligations that require enforcement. By allowing judges to escape repercussions for derogation and dereliction of duty, the United States undermines its credibility as a leader in the rule of law and human rights.
If the U.S. is to maintain its standing in the global community, it must bring its judiciary in line with international standards. Judges who fail in their duties must face severe penalties to ensure that justice is not only administered but is also perceived as just by the public and the international community. The time for reform is long overdue.
References:
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), United Nations.
- UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (2020) – Report on U.S. violations at Guantanamo Bay.
- European Court of Human Rights – Oversight on judicial accountability in Europe.
Until Next Time…
I Am,
Ewing Redmond Samuels III
