The Judiciary’s Process for Adjudicating Redaction Requests and Responding to Requests for Copies of Financial Disclosure Reports

The Judicial Conference, through its Committee on Financial Disclosure,  has developed a multistep process for reviewing federal judges’ requests  for redactions of information from their financial disclosure reports and  requests for copies of these reports, as shown in figure 1. The Judicial Conference Has Developed Procedures to Ensure Judicial Officials File Financial Disclosure Reports, and More Than 4,000 Reports Are Filed Annually

The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure has  developed an electronic report filing system, written guidance, and a  compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file their financial  disclosure reports. According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all annual financial  disclosure reports required to be filed from calendar years 2012 through  2016 were filed, except for one for calendar year 2015. The Judiciary is Complying with Procedures for Responding to Requests for Financial Disclosure Reports and the Number of Reports Released Has Varied from 2012 through 2016

The judiciary is complying with the Judicial Conference’s Guide to  Judiciary Policy (Volume 2, Part D, Chapters 3-4), which sets forth the  process for releasing financial disclosure reports. The number  of financial disclosure reports released each year varied during this time  period, as shown in table 3. Few Judicial Officials Requested Redactions and They Pertained Mostly to the Unsecured Location of Family Members, but the Judiciary Has Not Reported Redaction Results to Congress in a Timely Manner

		On Average, 3.2 Percent of Judicial Officials Requested Redactions from 2012 through 2016

The number of judicial officials who requested redactions represents a  small percentage of the total number of financial disclosure reports filed in  recent years. Most Redaction Requests Pertained to the Unsecured Location of a Judicial Official or Immediate Family Member

We analyzed AOUSC data on redaction requests made from calendar  years 2012 through 2016 by type of information requested to be redacted  and found that the majority (about 76 percent) of the requested redactions  pertained to information related to the unsecured location of a judicial  official or an immediate family member. Conclusions

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, serves the public  interest by providing access to selected information from financial  disclosure reports filed by judicial officials that could represent conflicts of  interest for these officials. The  Judicial Conference developed a compliance process to ensure judicial  officials were filing financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable  laws and regulations, and also had procedures in place to ensure the  public had access to copies of judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports  when requested. From 2012 through 2016, about 3.2  percent of financial disclosure reports included a redaction request and  about 85 percent of those were approved. Nevertheless, the law requires  AOUSC to submit an annual report to congressional committees of  jurisdiction on the operation of the judiciary’s redaction authority, including  information on the total number of reports with redactions and the types of  information redacted. Our review of available guidance and  documentation shows that AOUSC has not implemented a formal process  for producing annual redaction reports and has not submitted these  reports to Congress in a timely manner. Implementing a more formal  process, with specified steps and timeframes, would allow AOUSC to be  better positioned to provide congressional committees of jurisdiction with  the required annual redaction reports that can be used to conduct  oversight of the federal judiciary’s use of its redaction authority. Recommendation for Executive Action

The Director of AOUSC should develop and implement a formal process,  with specified steps and associated time frames, to better ensure that  required annual redaction reports are completed and submitted to  Congress within the following year. We are sending copies of this report to the Administrative Office of the  U.S. Courts, the Attorney General, the United States Marshals Service,  selected congressional committees, and other interested parties.
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, federal judges and certain judicial employees must file financial disclosure reports that can be made available to the public. Federal law accounts for the potential security risks of the judiciary and authorizes the redaction of information from judicial officials' reports if the Judicial Conference, in consultation with the United States Marshals Service (USMS), finds that revealing certain information could endanger judicial officials or members of their families.
This report addresses the following for calendar years 2012 through 2016, the most recent years for which full data were available: (1) Actions taken by the Judicial Conference to ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports filed; (2) The judiciary's compliance with procedures for responding to requests for financial disclosure reports and the number of reports released; and (3) The number of redaction requests made, the types of information requested to be redacted, and the judiciary's consistency in reporting results to Congress in a timely manner.
GAO interviewed AOUSC and USMS officials, reviewed relevant laws and guidance, and analyzed data on redaction requests.

What GAO Found

The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's principle policy-making body, developed an electronic filing system, guidance, and a compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable laws and regulations, and data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) show that more than 4,000 reports were required to be filed annually from 2012 through 2016. According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all financial disclosure reports required to be filed from 2012 through 2016 were filed, except for one in 2015 and one in 2016. AOUSC officials are working with the filers to ensure these reports will be filed.
The Judicial Conference established procedures for responding to requests for copies of financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports released has varied. From 2012 through 2016, AOUSC annually received, on average, about 70 requests for copies of judicial officials' reports and released approximately 16,000 reports during this time. Each request can vary—from a request for a single judicial official's report to a request for multiple judicial officials' reports.
From 2012 through 2016, a small percentage of judicial officials requested redactions from their financial disclosure reports. On average, 3.2 percent of financial disclosure reports filed included a redaction request and about 85 percent of those requests were granted. Of the information requested to be redacted, about 76 percent was related to the unsecured location of a judicial official's spouse, child, or residence. AOUSC is required by federal law to submit annual reports to Congress on use of the judicial redaction authority, such as the number of reports with redactions and types of information redacted, but AOUSC has not consistently submitted the reports on an annual basis in recent years. GAO found that AOUSC does not have a formal process for preparing and submitting the reports to Congress. Implementing a more formal process, with specified steps and timeframes, would better position AOUSC to provide Congress with more timely reports.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that AOUSC develop and implement a formal process, with steps and timeframes, to better ensure that required annual reports are submitted to Congress within the following year. AOUSC concurred with the recommendation.