Impartiality Under Fire: A Federal Judge’s Warning on Judicial Independence

In times of democratic strain, clarity must come not only from scholars and journalists but also from those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution with impartiality and courage.

This second piece in a series in The Fulcrum, “Judges on Democracy,” where we invite retired federal judges to speak directly to the American public about the foundational principles of our legal system: the separation of powers, the rule of law, and the indispensable role of an independent judiciary to our democratic republic.

Read the first installment featuring Judge Paul R. Michel: Judges on Democracy: How the Independent Judiciary Protects America’s Constitutional Balance.

These voices are not partisan. They are principled. Having served on the bench with fidelity to law over politics, these jurists now step forward—not to advocate for any party or agenda but to illuminate the constitutional architecture that protects liberty and equality for all.

Their reflections are rooted in experience, not ideology. Their warnings are grounded in precedent.

At a time when threats to judicial independence are growing more frequent and more brazen, The Fulcrum offers this series as a civic resource and a moral compass. We believe that understanding how our courts function and why their integrity is essential to preserving the democratic experiment our founders envisioned is crucial.

Today, Judge John S. Martin Jr, who served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York from 1990 to 2003, answered several important questions for the Fulcrum.

Judge Martin’s distinguished legal career has spanned more than six decades. Before his judicial appointment, Judge Martin served as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York from 1980 to 1983, leading one of the nation’s most prominent prosecutorial offices. Earlier in his career, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief Appellate Attorney in the SDNY. He also served as an Assistant to the U.S. Solicitor General from 1967 to 1969. Judge Martin additionally held positions in private practice at several prominent firms, including Debevoise & Plimpton and Schulte Roth & Zabel, and was a founding partner of Martin & Obermaier.

Following his retirement from the bench, Judge Martin remained active in legal practice, serving as an arbitrator and consultant in matters involving commercial contracts, executive compensation, insurance coverage, and construction claims—routinely handling disputes valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Judge Martin is a graduate of Manhattan College (B.A., 1957) and Columbia Law School (LL.B., 1961).

His words are a reminder that the judiciary is not a tool of power; it is a bulwark against its abuse.

Why did the framers enshrine an independent judiciary—and how does that safeguard our democracy today?

The genius of the Constitution lies in the fact that it created three separate coequal branches of the government, each with an independent responsibility. Congress was to pass laws; the president was the chief executive who would execute and enforce those laws, and the judiciary was to provide a forum for citizens and others to litigate disputes arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. Most important, it was for the courts to have the final say as to whether either Congress or the president had overstepped their bounds and engaged in conduct that was either contradictory to or unsupported by something in the Constitution and laws of the United States. Thus, an important function of the federal courts is to ensure that neither Congress nor the president exercise power not granted by the Constitution.

Why are retired judges speaking out now—what compels you to break tradition and raise your voice?

The current political atmosphere has given rise to both physical threats to judges and efforts to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Those who adopted the Constitution recognized the importance of having judges who were truly independent and who would act free from any pressure to do anything other than that which the law required. For that reason, the Constitution provided that federal judges should serve for life and could only be removed by impeachment and also provided that their compensation could not be diminished.

Why is using impeachment to challenge judicial decisions a threat to constitutional balance?

The Constitution prohibits removing a federal judge from office except by impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Thus, there is no grounds for an impeachment proceeding based solely on a judge's good-faith decision in a particular case.

Even though a judge cannot be impeached for a particular decision, the commencement of such a proceeding impinges upon the independence of the judiciary for two reasons. 1) it causes the judge to have to spend time and money defending a baseless proceeding, and 2) it inflames public reaction to such a decision and thereby creates a threat that someone will seek to injure the "offending" judge either physically or financially.

What do you wish more Americans understood about the role of judges in preserving liberty and equality?

Because of their independence, federal judges have the freedom to decide cases solely on the merits. That gives them the ability to protect the rights of each of us from any type of prohibited discrimination or from an unwarranted criminal or civil litigation.

What moment from your time on the bench best captures the weight—or wonder—of serving justice?

For me, the most difficult and most rewarding part of my work involved sentencing individuals for violation of criminal law. It was difficult because sentencing anyone to a substantial term in prison is an awesome responsibility. Federal law requires use of a sentencing guideline system, which in many cases can result in an unjust sentence if the guideline is literally applied. However, there are cases in which a judge can impose a sentence less than that set by the guidelines if the judge can articulate the existence of some factor that was not adequately considered by the commission that set up the guidelines. I think I did my best work as a judge in several cases where I dramatically reduced the sentences the guidelines established, using this exception. I think, for example, of the case in which I reduced the sentence of the mother of three young children from 3 1/2 years to seven months, and another in which I reduced the sentence of a low-level drug dealer from 19 to 12 years. Feeling that you are doing justice to those who may not have otherwise received it is one of the greatest satisfactions you can have as a judge.