The Judicial Guild No One Voted For — Inside the American Inns of Court
By Michael Phillips
“No one elected them. No one regulates them. And yet they sit behind closed doors shaping the justice system that rules over you.”
Behind the marble walls of America’s courthouses, far from the public eye, a private guild of judges, lawyers, and legal elites operates with astonishing influence. It’s called the American Inns of Court, and if you’ve never heard of it, that’s by design.
Founded in 1980 and modeled after an ancient British system of legal mentorship and social networking, the American Inns of Court (AIC) has evolved into one of the most powerful — and secretive — players in the modern U.S. judiciary. It hosts invitation-only dinners, controls networking pipelines for judgeships and clerkships, and cultivates the kind of exclusive access that ordinary citizens can only dream of.
Now, thanks to a formal impeachment petition filed by ADA advocate Janice Wolk Grenadier, this hidden power center is being dragged into the light.
The Gala in the Court
As exposed in Part 1 of this series, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. is facing calls for impeachment for, among other things, allowing an American Inns of Court gala to be hosted inside the United States Supreme Court building — while denying a similar request from Grenadier’s nonprofit, JudicialPedia.
According to the petition, Roberts’ decision to lend the Supreme Court’s Great Hall to the AIC amounts to “lending judicial prestige to advance private interests,” a direct violation of Judicial Canon 2B and the Code of Conduct.
But the issue goes deeper than a single gala.
The AIC’s access to federal judges, including Supreme Court Justices, is not symbolic. It represents an institutional bias — a legal caste system where access to justice depends on who you know, not what you know or who you represent.
The Legal Elite’s Country Club
Unlike bar associations or judicial oversight bodies, the American Inns of Court is not a government entity. It is a private membership organization. Judges and attorneys join voluntarily. There is no public oversight. There are no public records of its internal dealings. Yet its chapters span the country — from Virginia to California — with over 30,000 members including sitting judges, prosecutors, law professors, and corporate lawyers.
Membership is structured in tiers: Masters of the Bench (usually judges), Barristers (mid-level attorneys), Associates (young lawyers), and Pupils (law students). It functions much like an elite mentorship pipeline.
But here’s the catch: The American public has no seat at the table.
No voting. No transparency. No accountability. And yet these gatherings — often hosted at federal courthouses or, in this case, inside the very building where constitutional precedent is set — help decide which lawyers rise, which judges are nominated, and which norms are enforced (or ignored).
A Breeding Ground for Bias?
Grenadier argues that the AIC, in practice, is a breeding ground for institutional bias — where judges mingle with certain lawyers behind closed doors, while pro se litigants, whistleblowers, and average Americans are cast aside as nuisances.
Her petition highlights a fundamental problem:
“How can a judge be impartial when they’re clinking glasses with one party’s lawyer at a private guild dinner?”
This isn’t just hypothetical. In dozens of cases across the country, litigants have raised concerns that opposing counsel had backchannel relationships with judges through Inns of Court, bar associations, or former clerkships. And when complaints are filed? They’re buried. Judicial councils dismiss them. There is no public review board. And most citizens don’t even know where to begin.
The Unspoken Rules of the “Robed Club”
The AIC isn’t just a place to socialize. It shapes judicial culture. Its sponsored programs, lectures, and “ethics dinners” reinforce the idea that law is a professional guild, not a public institution. It perpetuates the “we know best” mindset that leads to rulings against due process, citizen participation, or outside scrutiny.
Judges are not supposed to join organizations that compromise their independence. Yet in 2025, nearly half the federal judiciary is affiliated with an Inns of Court chapter — many serving as officers or trustees.
Is that a violation of the Constitution? Maybe not directly. But it flies in the face of Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980), which held that public access to the judiciary is a core First Amendment right.
If judges are using public property to meet privately with private actors, how is that consistent with “equal justice under law”?
Roberts’ Role in the Robe Club
Chief Justice Roberts has been a longtime supporter of the AIC. He has served as a host and honorary speaker. He has allowed AIC-affiliated events inside the Supreme Court building. He has, in Grenadier’s words, “invited the fox into the henhouse.”
The decision to greenlight the 2025 AIC Gala while denying a civic dinner proposed by JudicialPedia is more than a bad look — it’s discriminatory conduct under color of law (18 U.S.C. § 242), and potentially a conspiracy to deprive rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241.
If an ordinary federal official rented out government space to a private lobbying group while denying equal access to the public, they’d be fired — maybe indicted. But when the Chief Justice does it?
The system shrugs.
“Judges Policing Judges” Is a Failed System
Grenadier’s broader argument — and the growing concern of millions of Americans — is that the entire system of judicial oversight has collapsed.
- Complaints go unanswered.
- Corruption is hidden.
- Court clerks destroy records.
- Misconduct is normalized — as long as you’re part of the club.
The AIC symbolizes everything that has gone wrong. It is the unregulated, unelected shadow legislature of the judiciary — influencing case law, careers, and outcomes from behind velvet curtains.
The Road Ahead
The House Judiciary Committee now faces a historic test. Grenadier has submitted her formal Petition for Impeachment — armed with evidence, statutes, and case law.
If Congress continues to ignore it, the message to the American people will be clear:
“There are two justice systems in this country — one for the connected, and one for the rest of us.”
And the people are paying attention.
Coming Next:
Part 3: “Document Destruction and the Silence of the Clerks”
Discover more from Maryland Bay News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.