A Trump-appointed federal appeals judge, Jennifer Mascott of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, actively managed a Washington, D.C., public affairs firm—Adfero—for at least six months after her judicial confirmation in October 2025, an arrangement that raised ethics concerns, contributed to staff and client departures, and ended only when the firm closed on June 30, 2026.
The case presents an interesting discussion about the proper scope of outside business dealings for federal judges, perceptions of conflict of interests, and the limits of the tool of recusal as a blanket solution to all ethical dilemmas. The key aspect of the case lies in an inherent contradiction: while federal judges are supposed to be fully dedicated to the bench, free from any activities that can raise doubts as to their impartiality, at the same time, federal judges may engage in the operation of family businesses under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges.
The Timeline: From Confirmation to Closure
Jennifer Mascott became a member of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2025 when she worked as a law professor and a Department of Justice lawyer. Jennifer took over the ownership of Adfero, a bipartisan public relations and government affairs company, after the death of her husband, Jeff Mascott, the owner of the company, in February 2023.
As reported by Politico, which had conversations with 14 former Adfero employees and clients who have requested anonymity, Mascott continued to be actively engaged in the management of Adfero’s day-to-day affairs for at least six months even after becoming a judge. According to nine former Adfero employees, she worked at least once a week from the firm’s offices in Washington D.C., managing human resources, development of business, and relationships with clients, while performing her duties as a full-time judge in Wilmington and Philadelphia.
The arrangement persisted until June 30, 2026, when Adfero shut its doors after two decades in operation. Multiple former staffers and clients told reporters that the judge’s dual role contributed to an exodus of talent and business as morale frayed and key accounts departed.
What the Ethics Rules Say—and Where They Blur
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges permits judges to maintain ownership in family businesses but sets clear guardrails. Participation “may be prohibited if it takes too much time or involves misuse of judicial prestige or if the business is likely to come before the court on which the judge serves.” The rule is designed to protect both the reality and the appearance of judicial independence.
Mascott revealed her Adfero investments while she was being confirmed for the Senate and said that she would recuse herself from all affairs related to Adfero or its clients based on Section 28 U.S.C. § 455 of the judicial code. According to Politco, Mascott acted as the managing trustee at the wish of her late husband, sought advice from HR experts, and thought that recusal resolved the issue.
She also told concerned staffers there was “no problem” so long as she recused herself from matters involving the firm, its clients or potential clients, according to three former employees.
Judicial ethics experts, however, describe the situation as a gray area. As Indiana University law professor Charles Geyh told Politico,
“If she is logging time there and it has the potential to interfere with her judicial duties, that is a no-go.”
The concern is not only about actual conflicts but also about the optics of a judge running a lobbying-adjacent business while presiding over cases that could touch regulated industries.
Inside Adfero: Staff Discomfort and a Client Exodus
Multiple former employees and clients described growing unease as Mascott split her time between the bench and the firm. One former employee told Politico,
“People asked me ‘Is this legal?’ I don’t know. ‘Is this ethical?’ Certainly not.”
Another added,
“On one hand, maybe the owner of the company should be involved, but on the other hand she’s a judge.”
The discomfort was not merely philosophical; it translated into tangible instability.
According to previous employees, Mascott’s role in the operations entailed staffing, business development plans, and management of client relations, all while presiding over her own judicial caseload. With the departure of large-scale clients such as PhRMA, it was alleged that Mascott steered the pitches towards health insurers and other companies in an attempt to bolster their revenues. However, the partnership occurred alongside an exit of a lot of staff and loss of more accounts, which ultimately led to the shutdown of the firm.
The bipartisan nature of the firm was another source of controversy. Former employees mentioned how Mascott had hired consultants with Republican connections, even going as far as a former aide to Congresswoman Lauren Boebert, in spite of the bipartisan nature of Adfero. This perception could undermine a judge’s impartiality irrespective of the cases.
Political and Institutional Fallout
The story quickly drew political attention. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he was considering filing a judicial misconduct complaint over the alleged conflicts, citing reports that Mascott was “deeply involved in daily operations” while on the bench.
Coons had earlier questioned Mascott’s judicial ideology while she was undergoing confirmation, especially with regards to how she views the power of the president and administrative law. The allegation would have put pressure on the judicial council of the 3rd Circuit to investigate whether the outside activities of Mascott have gone against the code of conduct or not, thus shaking public confidence in the judiciary. Investigations like that could lead to private censure or public censure; in extreme situations, it could even lead to impeachment. However, the former is very unlikely to happen.
The Broader Pattern: Judges, Business, and Public Confidence
Mascott’s case comes at a time when issues regarding judicial ethics have become increasingly prominent, from debates regarding the recusal of the members of the Supreme Court to disclosure of investments by district judges. The key issue is whether the present code of conduct is sufficient in ensuring that the judiciary looks impartial despite their positions within family enterprises.
The code’s language—
“may be prohibited if it takes too much time”
—is intentionally flexible, but that flexibility can invite when a judge’s involvement is frequent and operational.
Recusal is often presented as the solution: a judge steps aside from any case involving the business or its clients. But recusal cannot resolve the structural concern that a judge is devoting weekly hours to a firm whose success may depend on relationships with entities that could appear in federal court. As one former staffer put it,
“Is she even allowed to be doing this?”
Even if the answer is technically “yes” under a narrow reading, the optics can still damage institutional trust.
What Comes Next for the 3rd Circuit and the Judiciary
The first thing to happen after this is whether the formal charge of misconduct is filed and how the 3rd Circuit’s judicial council reacts. The review is expected to take into consideration the amount of Mascott’s time commitment, her decision-making responsibility, and whether she engaged in activities that posed a threat of misuse of the prestige of the position. In addition, the question will be raised about whether her recusal promise was enough based on the customer base of her firm and the industries it operated in. Apart from this particular situation, it also reveals the necessity of providing clear guidelines for judges who take an active part in running family businesses, particularly if these companies are involved in lobbying and public affairs.
For now, the Mascott–Adfero story is a cautionary tale about the intersection of personal obligation, professional duty, and public perception. It asks a simple but difficult question: when does a judge’s involvement in a family business cross from permissible stewardship into impermissible management? The answer will shape not only this case but the standards by which future judges navigate similar conflicts.
