State Supreme Court Justices and Ethics Investigations

Despite all the attention on the need for stronger ethics rules for the U.S. Supreme Court, ethical scandals are not limited to federal justices. Supreme court justices in several states have recently been under investigation for allegations of mismanagement and even corruption. Just like in the federal system, transparent and enforceable ethical rules and procedures are crucial to maintaining a properly functioning judiciary and public trust in courts.

Most significantly, New Hampshire Supreme Court Justice Anna Barbara Hantz Marconi has been indicted on multiple charges, including two felony counts of attempting to commit acts of improper influence and solicitation. These charges stem from allegations she interfered with a criminal investigation into her husband, state Ports and Harbor director Geno Marconi, for alleged misuse of funds, accepting illegal gifts, and using racial slurs.

Hantz Marconi allegedly pressured Gov. Chris Sununu to halt the investigation into her husband, claiming it was biased and interfered with her judicial responsibilities. She was arraigned in state court in November and denies wrongdoing. She requested that her indictments be dismissed, citing judicial immunity and First Amendment protections. A judge denied her request and the case against her is moving forward. If convicted, she could face significant penalties, including prison time and fines. Her husband has not been criminally charged.

The state’s Judicial Conduct Committee has initiated a related disciplinary investigation into Hanz Marconi’s conduct and she is currently on leave from the court.

Most judicial ethics scandals do not rise to the level of criminal charges, but undermine public confidence in the courts nonetheless. In March, an Arkansas judicial human resources department report found that Chief Justice Karen Baker “intimidated staff, appears to have targeted female employees of color,” and “indicated an intention to retaliate based on her perception of how employees voted,” among other findings. The report is the latest development in a long-simmering conflict that has embroiled almost all the justices on the Arkansas high court.

The dispute began when an Arkansas Business journalist filed a records request in August for emails exchanged between Justice Courtney Hudson and former director of the Office of Professional Conduct Lisa Ballard. Ballard was fired in May 2024 from that office, which governs judicial conduct among Arkansas state supreme court justices and their staff. The circumstances of her dismissal are unclear.

Hudson opposed the release of the emails, citing an exemption to public records requests for judicial correspondence, but five of the seven high court justices voted — as an internal decision, not as part of a court case — to release the emails. Hudson eventually provided Ballard’s emails but withheld her own responses, claiming they were exempt. The released emails reveal mundane disputes over court credit card use, salary discussions, and an objection to relocating the professional conduct office. Hudson filed a lawsuit to block further disclosures, which her colleagues dismissed.

In January, Baker became the new chief justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court and immediately attempted to fire 10 employees of the Administrative Office of the Courts, the state agency that supports Arkansas’s judiciary. Baker’s fellow justices — apart from Hudson — objected, saying she lacked the authority to fire the employees without agreement from the rest of the court.

All told, six of seven Arkansas Supreme Court justices have been referred to the state’s judicial discipline panel by their fellow justices or other judicial employees since August.

In 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a rare public censure of former Chief Justice Nathan Coats for failing to “perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently.” The censure related to his approval of a multimillion-dollar contract with a judicial employee after she had been found to have falsified information on reimbursement requests. The state ethics commission noted that Coats acted based on the representations and recommendations of fellow judicial officers, non-lawyer professionals, and lawyers — but nonetheless found that Coats’s decisions about the contract violated the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.

Less than two years later, in January 2025, a report by the Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline revealed ongoing ethical and procedural lapses within the state judiciary, such as widespread and repeated failures to submit personal finance disclosures. “This situation with Colorado’s judiciary created a generalized appearance of impropriety,” the commission wrote.

In November, Colorado voters passed a ballot measure to establish an independent judicial oversight commission to better discipline judges who break rules. The amendment created a 12-member board for judicial discipline cases and specified that such cases must be public once formal proceedings begin, instead of remaining confidential throughout the process.

Colorado is not the only state working to reform its state judicial ethics rules and procedures. The Michigan Supreme Court said in July it was considering significantly increasing the amount of information the justices and lower court judges were required to include in their annual disclosures. In August, Vermont’s chief justice indicated a similar review is forthcoming. Last month, West Virginia’s top court appointed a committee to propose updates to the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct.

The American Bar Association publishes and periodically updates a Model Code of Judicial Conduct, portions of which many states have adopted as guidelines or rules for judicial action. State ethics codes that align with the model code often include elements such as defining judicial independence, providing guidelines for judicial competence and propriety, and naming certain activities that would violate judicial independence. Utilizing the model code’s language can serve as a useful starting point for states looking to improve judicial ethics.

States across the country must ensure their judicial branches avoid even the appearance of impropriety. A healthy judiciary promotes democracy and rule of law — and achieving that depends on public trust.

Manny Marotta is a legal and political journalist who has contributed articles to JURIST, The Hill, Business Insider, and other outlets. He is currently a law clerk with Fix the Court, where he conducts legal research and analysis on judicial and political developments.

Suggested Citation: Manny Marotta, State Supreme Court Justices and Ethics Investigations, Sᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (Jun. 11, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-supreme-court-justices-and-ethics-investigations-0