The judge who ruled against the government and ruled the NSA terrorist surveillance program unconstitutional may have had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Anna Diggs Taylor also serves as a trustee and officer to an organization that donated $45,000 to the Michigan chapter of the ACLU -- which happened to be one of the plaintiffs in the case (via Hot Air):

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, serves as a Secretary and Trustee for a foundation that donated funds to the ACLU of Michigan, a plaintiff in the case (ACLU et. al v. National Security Agency). Judicial Watch discovered the potential conflict of interest after reviewing Judge Diggs Taylor’s financial disclosure statements.

According to her 2003 and 2004 financial disclosure statements, Judge Diggs Taylor served as Secretary and Trustee for the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan (CFSEM). She was reelected to this position in June 2005. The official CFSEM website states that the foundation made a “recent grant” of $45,000 over two years to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan, a plaintiff in the wiretapping case. Judge Diggs Taylor sided with the ACLU of Michigan in her recent decision.

As Allahpundit notes, this does not appear to violate the legal canon of ethics, at least not explicitly, but it does seem rather too close for comfort. Many judges probably either belong to the ACLU or have given it support, but in this case it would appear unseemly for Taylor -- as an officer of an organization that is a major benefactor -- to have presided over a lawsuit the Michigan chapter brought. I doubt she will get any official sanction, but I also think it will dent her reputation than her opinion in the case has already done.

However, we should not get too triumphal about this development. The defendants of the lawsuit will almost certainly raise this question on appeal, but the real questions about the legality of the program still must find an answer. Even if the appellate court dismisses the decision on this basis, it only postpones a truly substantive review of the issue -- which Taylor didn't bother providing in the first place. The sooner that the Supreme Court reviews the issue, the better off we all will be.

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry is

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Taylor Conflicted?:

» Possible conflict of interest for Judge Anna Taylor Diggs from Sister Toldjah
Judge Diggs, you’ll remember, was the US District Court judge who last week ruled against the government’s NSA warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. The ruling was widely hailed by the usual suspects on the far left who are stil... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 9:15 PM

» Judge Taylor Who Struck Down Wiretap Case Accused Of Conflict Of Interest from Stop The ACLU
Wow! This case just took an interesting twist! Conservative Watchdog group, Judicial Watch, is accusing US District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who sided with the ACLU in their case against the government over NSA wiretaps, of failing to recuse hersel... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 9:19 PM

» Remember Vanguard? from The Political Pit Bull
Back when Justice Samuel Alito was merely a nominee to the Supreme Court, Democrats made issue of two things in particular in Justice Alito's past hoping to derail the nomination. The first was his membership in an organization called CAP... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 9:23 PM

» Judge Taylor’s conflicts from FreePA.org
I picked this one up via Captain’s Quarters, who notes that the judge who recently ruled that the NSA wiretapping program was illegal may have had just a minor conflict of interest. Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and ... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 9:56 PM

» Professionals don’t hide their biases. from Blog From the Underground
According to Judicial Watch (Hat Tip: CQ) Judge Taylor was a major player in an organization which donated 45,000 to the plaintiff in the case. Now I understand that judges can’t be removed for having ideological views, but for some reason we say... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 10:23 PM

» Judicial Misconduct? from ProCynic
Did Federal Judge Anna Diggs Taylor commit judicial misconduct (again) when she struck down the NSA monitoring provisions? Gateway Pundit links to the Chron Watch story that has the scoop: Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigate... [Read More]

Tracked on August 22, 2006 10:36 PM

» Judge Taylor Participated In $45,000 Donation To The ACLU from Flopping Aces
A conflict of interest is coming to light in Judge Taylor’s past. You will recall that Judge Taylor is the one who wrote the idiotic opinion siding with the ACLU over the NSA wiretap case. Now Judicial Watch has found that she help make a $45,0... [Read More]

Tracked on August 23, 2006 12:33 AM

» Judge Who Struck Down NSA Program May Have Conflict Of Interest from Iowa Voice
The judge that recently struck down the NSA wiretapping program may have had a conflict of interest in the case: Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that J [Read More]

Tracked on August 23, 2006 6:47 AM

» Conflict Of Interest in the Wiretap Case? from Morning Coffee
Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and judicial abuse, announced today that Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, who last week ruled the government’s warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional, ... [Read More]

Tracked on August 23, 2006 8:06 AM

» Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - Conflict of Interest? from KURU Lounge
Sorry, I am with Patterico on this one. To me given who she was appointed by, when she was appointed, and who confirmed her it was just a given that she had an association with the ACLU. It is like a prerequisite for judges appointed by liberal Pre... [Read More]

Tracked on August 23, 2006 8:16 AM