At times mean and cruel, US Judge John Adams in Akron gets more applause than he deserves
Beware of the spin by advocates for Judge John Adams. They portray the U.S. District Court judge as the victim of abuse inflicted by “the bureaucracy of the federal judiciary.” In their telling, Adams merely questioned the spending habits of fellow judges. They portray Adams as prioritizing the public trust only to get kicked by his peers.
As Adams put it five years ago, “This case isn’t about my mental health. It is about my efforts to improve court administration.”
The judge recently dropped his lawsuit challenging the 2016 findings and conclusions of a panel of federal judges established to handle complaints about those sitting on the bench. The process resulted in the panel issuing a public reprimand and ordering Adams to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to assess whether he is fit to conduct his duties.
When Adams resisted the evaluation, the review panel added a misconduct charge.
A legal stalemate ensued — until the review panel vacated the misconduct charge and the mental health assessment. Adams then dropped his lawsuit.
Does the outcome amount to “a remarkable victory for the rule of law and our constitutional system,” as Adams advocates contend?
Worth stressing is that the public reprimand of Adams holds. Such actions are exceedingly rare in the federal judiciary, judges respectful of the independence that comes with their position, reluctant to act unless a colleague clearly and repeatedly crosses the line. Recall that Adams lowered the boom on a magistrate judge who made a clerical error in a Social Security case. He ordered the magistrate judge to show cause or face sanctions.
This was over the top, to say the least, threatening harm to the career of a fellow officer of the court. Adams resisted removing the order, even as other judges urged him to do so. Here was the final straw, colleagues having watched Adams become more isolated, erratic and ill-tempered during a period of years.
More:Judge Adams biographical highlights
What deserves emphasis is that these troubles were not confined to Adams and his relationships with fellow judges, or about one judge somehow battling dark forces in the judiciary. Adams has made victims of those who appeared in his courtroom, at times proving plain mean, even cruel. In his way, he has eroded the administration of justice.
His advocates argue that Adams has faced what no other federal judge should experience. Actually, the sentiment applies neatly to those appearing before him. Too many have encountered what should not be seen in a federal courtroom.
Take the federal public defender who was the target of his misplaced wrath. Adams sanctioned her for “unreasonably and vexatiously” disrupting court procedures, for acting “in bad faith” as she represented a man accused of smuggling illegal immigrants.
Federal prosecutors asked Adams to back off the sanctions. He went ahead, anyway. Finally, the federal appeals court in Cincinnati came to the rescue. It rescinded the public sanction, finding “the record does not support any basis” for the judge’s actions.
It deemed the record “barren” of bad faith on the part of the public defender, who endured this ordeal for more than two years.
Appeals court takes 'rarely invoked' step against Judge Adams
Not long after, in 2014, the appeals court took the extraordinary step of removing Adams from a disability case involving a Stow firefighter. The court noted that such a reassignment is “rarely invoked.” Yet Adams noticeably tilted against the plaintiff, showing, as the court put it, “such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.”
The stories are many of Adams without the temperament expected in a judge, whatever the level. Few of these episodes gain public notice, in part, due to fear. Who wants to cross a federal judge?
What has attracted attention is his handling of such high-profile matters as the lawsuit involving Akron and its firefighters. Again, the appeals court removed Adams, noting he had “contributed greatly” to the discord that prolonged the case.
Judge Adams is critic of Akron sewer plan, FirstEnergy
Many may applaud when Adams lately lashes FirstEnergy. In the lengthy litigation over repairing of the city’s combined sewer system, he has deserved credit for pushing all sides to reach a plan worthy of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Yet, here, too, he has exhibited a penchant for seeing problems where they don’t exist, for fueling conflict and delay, which are hardly what litigants, or the rest of us, want in a judge.
Remember, again, how the community rallied to keep the position Adams now occupies in the federal courthouse in Akron. Over the years, the community has benefited from fine judges. I especially have in mind Sam Bell. The trouble with John Adams isn’t so much his clashes with colleagues, though they invite concern. Rather, it is the disrespect and lack of responsibility he has shown in his courtroom. Any community deserves better.
Douglas was the Beacon Journal editorial page editor from 1999 to 2019. He can be reached at mddouglasmm@gmail.com.
