According to a budget bill published Tuesday, the New York State Senate seeks to add to the Judiciary Law to require an annual accounting of how the court system allocates drivers and security teams for judges, as well as who benefited from them in the past year, why, and who approved it. Lawmakers also want to know what these arrangements cost the state and whether the judiciary has suggestions for improvement.
If the bill becomes law, the first report due June 1 would capture information on former Chief Judge Janet DiFiore's controversial escort that top court officials have repeatedly declined to disclose.
Law360 first revealed DiFiore kept her unprecedented multimillion-dollar court officer security detail after she abruptly resigned as she faced ethics charges. Later reporting showed DiFiore and acting Chief Judge Anthony Cannataro failed to report any taxable personal use of the state-funded vehicle or drivers for 2022.
"There have been serious questions raised about the propriety of some of this security spending," Deputy Majority Leader Michael Gianaris told Law360. "If they're not forthcoming with information, it's impossible to evaluate just how far down the rabbit hole they've gone with this improper spending."
"The only bits of information they've given us turned out to be inaccurate at the public hearing," Gianaris said, referencing misleading testimony by Chief Administrative Judge Tamiko Amaker, who misstated key facts and omitted important context about a series of threats that purportedly justified the security detail.
"So it's important for us to have the details in order to make an assessment about whether what they're doing is outside the bounds of what is permissible," the senator added.
Under the Senate's plan, if the New York State Unified Court System doesn't comply, it will face a $10 million "stonewalling" penalty this year, Gianaris confirmed, in a separate appropriations bill.
Senate staff determined that $10 million in non-salary funds wouldn't impact court operations or labor costs, but it may be a large enough potential loss to push the judiciary to meet lawmaker's requests for information.
Senate Judiciary Chair Brad Hoylman-Sigal told Law360 the reporting requirement and penalty was needed after Judge Amaker's "incomplete" testimony. "This is not about clipping their wings. This is about understanding the magnitude of the problem," he said. "I think we should be informed as to the risks that members of our judiciary are facing. It's a very serious issue."
"It's really about public transparency at the end of the day and trying to help them make their case that the security is necessary," he added.
The Senate wants two reports on any security arrangements for judges or non-judges: a public report and a strictly-secret report for the governor and key lawmakers only.
The annual public report will detail threats to the judiciary in the past year, including the number of threats and violence judges faced, and how many police reports were filed as a result. It will also disclose the overall cost of "extraordinary security measures," defined as any security outside the courthouse, and how many judges received that security.
The confidential report will provide more granular information on who received extra security, a description of the threat justifying any security detail, an account of the size and scope of the detail, its start and end date, its cost, and who approved it.
The private report must include the Office of Court Administration's specific method and process for assessing a threat to a judge or their family, including justifications for whether, when and for how long extra security can be put in place.
The New York State Senate put the proposition in its annual budget resolution, highlighting it as a priority for the upper chamber ahead of negotiations with the Assembly and Gov. Kathy Hochul. Only if it is enacted in the final budget will the Senate proposal have the force of law.
Lawmakers presented the demand for data on court officer escorts alongside requests related to other priorities, principally ensuring judges are implementing new bail laws.
The senators sought data on how exactly judges are trained on new laws and what training is required. The legislators also seek annual performance reviews of judges and reports on how often judges are reversed on appeal.
"This is the first that we are hearing of this proposed bill. We will review it when we actually see it and make our comments through the appropriate channels," a state court spokesperson said before the bill was published.
At the federal level, a spokesperson for the U.S. Marshals told Law360 that it was not unusual to supply information to Congress about how exactly money is spent on judicial security. If sensitive details are requested about which judges are protected with how many marshals, that information is provided in a classified briefing, he said.
"We don't hold any of that back because they fund it. Congress funds the judiciary, and they fund what we put out there for protection," said Brady McCarron, deputy director of public affairs at the U.S. Marshals Service. "So, they have to know what they're getting with their money."
The Marshals even publish a public annual report giving detailed accounts of select protective operations, including in the aftermath of the July 2020 attack on U.S. District Judge Esther Salas, which killed her son and left her husband wounded. Notably, the 2021 report openly stated that the 24/7 security detail for that federal judge was "a nine-month protective operation that culminated in April 2021."
Conversely, during her February testimony to New York lawmakers, Chief Administrative Judge Amaker refused to say if DiFiore's seven-year-long security escort was ongoing. "That would put the former chief judge in grave danger," she said, without elaborating.
--Editing by Alex Hubbard.
Update: This story has been updated with comments from a state court spokesperson, from the U.S. Marshals, from the state Senate Judiciary Committee chair and further details.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
