A Judicial Conference committee has decided to drop a draft advisory opinion that would have blocked federal judges from belonging to the Federalist Society or the American Constitution Society, pointing to a "lack of consonance" among jurists.

The decision was announced in a Thursday memo sent to all federal judges by Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Director James Duff. The Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct, the body responsible for the draft advisory opinion, described the importance of judicial integrity and urged federal judges to "remain vigilant" about their memberships in groups in a report included in Duff's memo.

The proposed policy, revealed earlier this year, drew enormous condemnation from those on the right, including conservative judges. Conservative legal groups slammed the effort, and a number of sitting Republican-tapped jurists—including some of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees—submitted a letter to the committee speaking out against the move.

"We believe the exposure draft conflicts with the Code of Conduct, misunderstands the Federalist Society, applies a double standard, and leads to troubling consequences," reads that letter, submitted in March and first reported by The New York Times. "The circumstances surrounding the issuance of the exposure draft also raise serious questions about the committee's internal procedures and transparency. We strongly urge the committee to withdraw the exposure draft."

The draft advisory opinion would not have prevented judges from participating in events held by either group. However, it stated that a "reasonable and informed public would view judges holding membership in these organizations to hold, advocate, and serve liberal or conservative interests."

In the partial report released Thursday, the Committee on Codes of Conduct—chaired by Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit—said after "extensive deliberations" it "elected to table the matter because the comments on the issue of membership in law-related organizations demonstrated a lack of consonance among judges."

"Rather than attempting to offer advice on membership in specific organizations, the committee has decided to rely on the advice it has previously given to judges as to how judges should analyze membership in these types of organizations," the document reads.

Citing "a world filled with challenges arising out of emerging technologies, deep ideological disputes, a growing sense of mistrust of individuals and institutions, and an ever-changing landscape of competing political, legal, and societal interests," the committee did warn judges to "remain vigilant" about their memberships in certain groups.

"The nation depends on a judiciary that is impartial and independent. Consistent with the judge's oath, each individual judge should take care to make all membership decisions in a way that is consistent with the highest ideals of the profession as expressed in the Code of Conduct," the report excerpt reads. "The rubric that is laid out in the committee's prior opinions and guidance is the appropriate way to analyze membership decisions, but balancing these considerations is ultimately best left to the judgment of individual judges."

Draft advisory opinions are typically not made public. But when this one leaked in January, it set off a wave of backlash from the right.

Much of that criticism centered around the opinion's block on belonging to those groups, but allowing American Bar Association memberships. Figures on the right argued the ban was biased, noting that the ABA participates in activities like filing amicus briefs, which the Federalist Society does not.

The ABA has faced separate criticism over "not qualified" ratings it has given to a handful of Trump judicial nominees.

But liberals were in favor of the ban, pointing to the Federalist Society's influence on Trump's judicial nominees. In a May letter submitted to the Committee on Codes of Conduct, several Senate Democrats accused the legal group of being "at the center of a network of dark-money-funded conservative organizations whose purpose is to influence court composition and outcomes."

Read more: