ProPublica: Judges often don’t recuse themselves when parties have financial ties to their relatives

Judges across the country often do not recuse -- or even disclose -- when an immediate family member may have a financial interest in a case before them or financial ties to one of the parties, according to an investigation released Tuesday by ProPublica.

The non-profit investigative newsroom partnered with student journalists from Boston University's College of Communication to look into the backgrounds of over a thousand judges who serve in federal and state courthouses across the country.

"We found dozens of judges presiding over cases where their family members appeared to have financial connections to the outcomes," ProPublica reporter Noah Pransky said. "The cases we highlighted are just some examples exposing a broken system of self-policing and little accountability."

Watch "Good Morning America" on Tuesday for an exclusive first look at ProPublica's investigation.

In one case of an appearance of a possible conflict, Judge Wendy Vitter, a federal judge based in New Orleans, presided over two jury trials in which paramedics employed by Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, sued for unpaid overtime. In both trials, the juries ruled in favor of the parish government.

ProPublica’s reporting found that at the same time, her husband, former U.S. Senator David Vitter, was being paid to lobby on behalf of the Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District, a local agency governed by Plaquemines Parish commissioners.

"That was never disclosed to any of the parties in the case, and as a result, they never had the information that they may have wanted to challenge her participation in that case," Pransky said.

The case highlights a gray area in federal law when it comes to disclosures by judges.

Although the American Bar Association advises that possible connections involving judges' relatives should be disclosed to parties involved to avoid the perception of a conflict of interest, the decision over whether to make that disclosure is usually made by judges themselves.

"The current ethics rules don't cut it because I think there's just a lack of transparency regarding the work of a judicial spouse," said Gabe Roth, who runs a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group called Fix the Court. "It's a real disservice to the transparency and accountability of the judiciary that this information is just so vague and easily left out."

Federal judges are required to state how their spouses make a living on yearly financial forms that are submitted to the court system. Judge Vitter's disclosure described former Sen. Vitter as a "self employed attorney," but he was also a paid lobbyist for a major firm.

"We're not saying Judge Wendy Vitter should have recused from the case, but at the very least it should have been disclosed," Pransky said, citing the analysis of five ethics experts from his investigation.

The parish government's win was overturned on appeal and the parties eventually settled the cases, with the EMTs receiving over $500,000.

"I had absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit in question before my wife," Sen. Vitter told ABC News in an email. "I lobbied at the federal level for Plaquemines Port, which is a different entity with a different governance structure than Plaquemines Parish, and which has nothing to do with Plaquemines paramedics."

The website for the Plaquemines Port Harbor and Terminal District says that its board "is made up of nine commissioners who are also the elected council members of Plaquemines Parish."

In a statement to ProPublica, Judge Vitter said that she "properly disclosed" Sen. Vitter’s income in annual financial filings, but that in the future, she will also provide information about the lobbying that he conducts.

ProPublica's investigation comes as justices with the U.S. Supreme Court, including Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, have been in the spotlight for their actions and connections off the bench.

"The Supreme Court gets most of the big headlines," Pransky said. "The truth is most of the country's decisions that we live by regarding abortion, food prices [and] EMTs getting overtime … are decisions that are made at lower courts. These are the courts that need more accountability, more transparency, and more eyeballs on them."

The full investigation by ProPublica can be accessed here.