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
© 2024 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
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-58
- 2Sweet James Clinches $17.4M Personal Injury Jury Verdict in California's Kings County
- 3In Lame-Duck Session, US Senate Confirms Illinois Federal Judge on Bipartisan Vote
- 4Gordon Rees Opens 80th Office, ‘Collaboration Hub’ in Palo Alto
- 5The White Stripes Drop Copyright Claim Against Trump Campaign
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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