Grassley, Jordan Call on Chief Justice Roberts to Address Federal Judges’ Possible Ethics Violations

Grassley, Jordan Call on Chief Justice Roberts to Address Federal Judges' Possible Ethics Violations

WASHINGTON - Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) today wrote to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts regarding federal judges' anonymous, partisan and public statements smearing the Supreme Court.

Grassley and Jordan's oversight follows anonymous statements made by federal judges to the press, which describe the relationship between the Supreme Court and lower courts as a "war zone" and accuse the Supreme Court of "undermining the lower courts," among other criticisms. The chairmen argue these inflammatory comments cast doubt on the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and may violate the judges' ethical obligations.

"As the Chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, we preside over the congressional committees with legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the federal courts. We are deeply concerned that these public attacks on the Court from sitting federal judges damage the public's faith and confidence in our judicial system. When judges call into question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, they erode faith in the institution itself," the lawmakers wrote.

Grassley and Jordan are asking Roberts to clarify whether these statements violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, and if the judicial branch plans to investigate or address the conduct.

"We urge you to consider the appropriateness of these public yet anonymous comments and whether they breach the ethical obligations of all federal judges. While we do not yet know the full extent of the comments or who the judges are, we remain convinced that judges should not be going to the press to undermine and denigrate the Supreme Court," the lawmakers continued.

Read Grassley and Jordan's letter HERE.

Background:

Federal judges are bound by ethical canons included in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Canon 1 of the Code of Conduct states that "[a] judge should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." Canon 2(A) specifies "[a] judge . . . should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Canon 3(A)(6) states: "[a] judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court."

In 2024, Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit resolved a judicial complaint against District Judge Michael Ponsor for publishing an essay titled, "A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?" Diaz concluded that Ponsor's statements violated Canons 1 and 2(A) by expressing "personal opinions on controversial public issues" and criticizing "the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice." Diaz also concluded that Ponsor's statements violated Canon 3(A)(6), noting "it would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito's recusal."

-30-

• Print
• Email
• Like
• Tweet