Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
(1) A judge may not sign petitions that would publicly associate the judge with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy. (2) A judge may make financial contributions to not-for-profit organizations whose activities and missions appear to be essentially charitable in nature, but may not donate to political organizations.
November 13, 2024 at 12:25 AM
5 minute read
The Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics responds to written inquiries from New York state's approximately 3,600 judges and justices, as well as hundreds of judicial hearing officers, support magistrates, court attorney-referees, and judicial candidates (both judges and non-judges seeking election to judicial office). The committee interprets the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct (22 NYCRR Part 100) and, to the extent applicable, the Code of Judicial Conduct. The committee consists of 28 current and retired judges, and is co-chaired by the Honorable Debra L. Givens, an acting justice of the supreme court in Erie County, and the Honorable Lillian Wan, an associate justice of the appellate division, second department.
Digest: (1) A judge may not sign petitions that would publicly associate the judge with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy.
(2) A judge may make financial contributions to not-for-profit organizations whose activities and missions appear to be essentially charitable in nature, but may not donate to political organizations.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(M); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 23-114; 23-06; 17-70; 17-38; 14-117.
Opinion: The inquiring judge asks if he/she may sign petitions circulated by the Jewish National Fund, Hadassah, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”), or other not-for-profit organizations concerning developments in the Middle East “[s]ince October 7th.” These petitions apparently call for elected officials and/or the public to take a range of actions, all in the context of a time of war in the Middle East. [1] For example, some urge the President of the United States “to bring the hostages home” while others “support the women of Israel who were brutalized on 10/7.” The judge also asks if he/she may donate money to the organizations that are circulating such petitions.
A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]). A judge must not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and may not “directly or indirectly” engage in political activity unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]). A political organization is defined as a “political party, political club or other group, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of candidates to political office” (22 NYCRR 100.0[M]).
In Opinion 17-38 we advised judges seeking to sign petitions addressed to the federal government in their capacity as private citizens that “[t]here may potentially be instances where a judge would be permitted to sign a petition.” The petitions most likely to be permissible are those “directly related to a specific personal interest of the judge” or “relating to improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” (id.). We cautioned, however, that “a judge is not free to sign all conceivable petitions,” even in these categories. For example, a judge may not sign if a petition is sponsored by a political organization or is framed as garnering support for a specific politician (id.).
We have also advised that judges and quasi-judicial officials “must not publicly associate [themselves] with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether by preaching or writing about them, or otherwise” (Opinion 17-70).
On the facts presented, we conclude that the judge may not sign any of the described petitions, as they would publicly associate the judge with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy.
Regarding donations, we have previously advised that judges may donate to organizations whose “activities and missions appear to be essentially charitable in nature,” but not to political organizations (Opinion 14-117). As explained in Opinion 23-114 (citations omitted):
In general, a judge may make donations to a wide range of non-political not-for-profit civic and charitable organizations. The fact that the organization may be involved in some activities that the judge may not be permitted to engage in, does not necessarily preclude the judge from making a charitable donation. However, a judge must not contribute to a political organization or make other political contributions. For example, we have advised that a judge may contribute to the non-political charitable and/or educational entities of Planned Parenthood, but not to its political action committee or other political arm.
Accordingly, the judge may only donate to these organizations provided they are not “political organizations” within the meaning of the Rules (see 22 NYCRR 100.0[M] [defining “political organization”]; Opinions 23-06 [applying the definition]; 17-70 [concluding that AIPAC is not a “political organization” under the rules]).
***
[1] According to the Washington Post, “Israel formally declared war against the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Sunday [October 8, 2023] as it reeled from a surprise attack [on October 7] that killed more than 700 people, opening the way for a major escalation in fighting that already threatened to engulf the region.” Over six months later, the Associated Press “is calling the present conflict between Israel and the militant Palestinian group Hamas a war, given the widespread and ongoing nature of military operations in Israel and Gaza” (https://apstylebook.com/topical_most_recent [visited 6/13/2024]).
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250