Posted initially on MDBayNews.com.
When you walk into a courtroom, you expect fairness. You expect the judge to be neutral, the facts to speak louder than money, and justice to be blind. But what if justice is quietly influenced by political contributions and behind-the-scenes favors?
That’s what Texas is trying to address with HB 5411 – the TRUST Act (Transparency and Reporting for Unbiased Standards in Trials). This bill, passed by the Texas Legislature, is a major step toward restoring public faith in the judicial system. It mandates that judges publicly disclose any campaign contributions, gifts, or financial support from individuals or entities appearing before them in court. In a world where judicial impartiality is everything, this kind of transparency isn’t just a good idea — it’s essential.
Now let’s talk about Maryland and Virginia. Because if you’re in either of those states and you’ve ever felt like the courtroom wasn’t exactly a level playing field — you’re not alone.
Why the TRUST Act Matters
In Texas, the TRUST Act was born out of growing concerns about judges ruling in cases involving their donors. It’s common knowledge that many state judges are elected officials who campaign for their seats — often raising thousands, if not millions, from law firms, corporations, or interest groups. When those same donors end up as litigants or attorneys in a courtroom, it becomes nearly impossible to believe the process is truly fair.
The TRUST Act aims to pierce that illusion by forcing disclosure. Judges would have to publicly identify campaign donations from parties involved in their courtroom, creating a paper trail and helping litigants assess potential bias.
Maryland and Virginia: The Status Quo
Neither Maryland nor Virginia currently require their judges to disclose this kind of financial entanglement in any meaningful way. In fact:
- Maryland’s judges are appointed, not elected — but that doesn’t mean they’re immune from political influence. Their appointments and reappointments are often guided by judicial nominating commissions, bar associations, and political allies, with little public transparency on backdoor lobbying or donor connections.
- Virginia’s judges are elected by the General Assembly, which creates a whole other layer of political favoritism. If a legislator has a close relationship with a judge they helped install, how can a citizen be sure that same judge will rule fairly if the legislator’s law firm appears in court?
In both states, the judicial system remains a black box. Litigants — especially in family court, civil rights, and local disputes — often suspect that bias, favoritism, or judicial networking may have tilted the scales long before any evidence was presented.
Why Maryland and Virginia Need Their Own TRUST Act
Here are three powerful reasons why these states should follow Texas’ lead:
1. Restore Public Confidence in the Courts
Distrust in the legal system is at an all-time high, especially in family court and civil matters. In both Maryland and Virginia, judges can make life-altering decisions — about child custody, financial restitution, protective orders — often without a jury, and often with little oversight.
A TRUST Act would help eliminate the appearance of corruption by mandating that judges disclose their relationships with any party or attorney appearing in front of them.
2. Prevent Conflicts of Interest Before They Happen
Imagine walking into a courtroom only to realize your opposing counsel donated to the judge’s campaign or is best friends with someone on the judicial nominating commission. That’s not justice — that’s theater.
A Maryland or Virginia TRUST Act would:
- Require real-time disclosure of contributions or relationships.
- Create searchable databases of contributions to judicial campaigns or appointments.
- Enforce recusal when conflicts arise.
3. Level the Playing Field for Ordinary Citizens
The current system rewards those with access: large law firms, well-connected attorneys, and politically active parties. Self-represented litigants, marginalized groups, and lower-income citizens are often at a severe disadvantage.
Transparency laws like HB 5411 would level the playing field — ensuring that no one can buy influence behind the scenes, and every citizen can walk into court with confidence that they’ll be judged fairly.
The Bottom Line
If Texas — with its long-standing tradition of judicial elections and local independence — can take a step toward meaningful judicial transparency, Maryland and Virginia have no excuse.
It’s time to bring the TRUST Act to the Mid-Atlantic. The people deserve to know who’s influencing their judges, what money is changing hands, and whether the courtroom is still a place of justice — or just another political arena.
Courts aren’t supposed to be casinos for the politically powerful. They’re supposed to be places of truth, fairness, and accountability. Without transparency, there is no trust. And without trust, there is no justice.
Author Note
Michael Phillips is the founder of REBUILT and Father & Co., advocating for transparency, parental rights, and accountability in the justice system. As a self-represented parent and legal reform advocate, he writes about corruption, resilience, and the urgent need for systemic change.
Support your favorite writer. Buy a subscription, or Buy Me Some Coffee.
Virginia Bay News 
Leave a comment