Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth released this statement following today’s release of the Codes of Conduct Committee’s Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 118:

“On a call last year with representatives from the Supreme Court, the Federal Judges Association, and other judges and bar leaders, I suggested that the Codes Committee write an advisory opinion on how judges might navigate their ethical responsibilities in light of the rising attacks against them and their increasing desire — and duty — to defend the branch and speak out against the attacks.

“I’m pleased to see that the Committee followed through and confirmed today that judges’ ‘public statements about the need for judicial security and funding sufficient for the courts to carry out their responsibilities’ are acceptable under the Code of Conduct.

“The Code ‘provides space ‘for the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law […],’ the opinion adds.

“Though individuals are not called out by name, this is a strong rebuke of the Trump administration’s ‘war‘ on the judiciary and comes one day after Attorney General Bondi denounced ‘liberal activist judges’ for taking part in ‘coordinated […] unlawful attack’ against President Trump’s ‘authority.’ Any judge who, in a measured manner, seeks to counter this nonsense would thus be on ethically sound footing.

“Finally, the opinion appears to reference the actions of several current and/or recently retired jurists when it reiterates that, ‘[r]egarding the tone of extrajudicial writing […], the Committee has advised that judges “should avoid sensationalism and comments that may result in confusion or misunderstanding of the judicial function or detract from the dignity of the office.”‘

“That guidance contradicts the text and the message presented by Fifth Circuit Judge Jim Ho last month in a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy piece that attacked the FJA, said some judges ‘have an overinflated view of their intelligence and their abilities’ and called others (somewhat ironically) ‘arrogant.’ This opinion won’t stop him, of course, but it’s still important for a Committee with this purview and prestige to call out this behavior, even obliquely.

“There are other tea leaves in the opinion, including some dressing down of judges’ anonymous comments to the press, and we’ll be sure to parse those in the coming days.

“But for now, this is a step forward for judicial ethics and for independence.”