News

Filter By:

Can a Judge Speak Up About the Systematic Failures of a State Agency Without Risking Sanctions?

By Manny Marotta, FTC law clerk

Two West Virginia judges were formally admonished by judicial disciplinary authorities last month after speaking publicly about persistent failures in the state’s Child Protective Services system.

Both judges raised alarms about dangerous understaffing and inadequate responses to child welfare crises, only to be reprimanded for what the Judicial Investigation Commission claimed were violations of the rules of judicial conduct.

Judge Tim Sweeney (Third Judicial Circuit) was admonished after stating that CPS had “failed grossly to look out for West Virginia children.” He had reached out to a reporter before entering a court order meant to address staffing shortages in the CPS system.

In defending his decision to speak out, Sweeney said, “I think somebody needs to stand up for the public, particularly the most vulnerable members of the community, the children. […] This just needs to be addressed, and I couldn’t think of any other way to do it.”

For these comments, Sweeney was reprimanded under several provisions of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct, including Rules 1.1, 1.2, 2.1(A), and 3.1(C), which cover compliance with the law, upholding public confidence in the judiciary and refraining from public comment on pending matters.

Judge Maryclaire Akers (Eighth Judicial Circuit) was similarly admonished under the same set of rules for comments she made following a hearing involving a 12-year-old child who attempted suicide after being placed in a hotel room due to a failed foster placement.

Akers noted during the interview (p. 3) that child abuse victims who are placed in CPS custody but do not receive a permanent placement in foster care often find themselves intersecting with the juvenile justice system. This is a truism no matter where in the U.S. one may live.

Akers maintains that her comments complied with Rule 2.10 of the Code, which limits judicial speech on pending cases but allows public statements that do not disclose confidential information or the substance of a ruling. In a press release she put out earlier this month, she wrote:

“Judge Akers’ comments complied with the applicable Rules of Judicial Conduct. Indeed, her statements were in line with those made by other judicial officers who have spoken at legal seminars, public events and to legislative bodies, often while the media is present. In fact, the Supreme Court positively highlighted her interview in a social media post.”

While the admonishments reflect the judiciary’s concern about preserving impartiality and public confidence, Fix the Court argues that these sanctions may discourage judicial transparency, especially when the welfare of children is on the line.

The West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct emphasizes that judges “must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to maintain and enhance confidence in the legal system.” It also encourages judges to “participate in activities that promote public understanding of and confidence in the justice system.”

Even the Judicial Investigation Commission agreed that Judges Sweeney and Akers both carefully avoided revealing any personal details about individual cases. Instead, their statements focused on broader institutional failures — especially CPS’s inability to provide safe placements for at-risk children.

The core tension in these disciplinary actions lies in conflicting judicial responsibilities: protecting the integrity of the courts while also advocating for urgent reform when lives are at stake. The admonishments suggest that the Commission is prioritizing the appearance of neutrality over the judges’ attempts to address long-standing child welfare issues.

Both judges have issued statements criticizing the admonishments, and we hope that in the long run the two are vindicated for their candor.

Related News

Get the Latest
">email