On the recordMay 14, 2026
The monitor serves at the discretion and the pleasure of the judge. If the judge thinks the monitor is doing a bad job or feathering his nest or taking money, the judge would get rid of the monitor immediately. That is up to the judge. If you have got a problem with a particular monitor, bring a motion before the judge to change the situation. Instead, the gentleman wants to make a Federal law out of it. I appreciate it is his last few months in Congress, and he wants to try to accomplish something in that particular case, but it really doesn't relate to the rest of the country. There has been no study done of monitorships generally, except for what Attorney General Garland did, and his bill departs radically from what Attorney General Garland was talking about. Just take, for example, this 5-year idea. The idea is, look, the judge can review the monitor at any point in the course of the monitorship. But there should be, Attorney General Garland said, a 5-year review where they look and see how it is going and is the jurisdiction complying or not. If they are not complying, as is taking place in Maricopa County, why not? What needs to be done? Is the monitor actually showing up at work and being a zealous individual about it or not? That can happen right now. But in any event, Attorney General Garland says, have a 5-year review.
Source
govinfo.gov




