Opinion 26-75

May 7, 2026

Digest:  A judge may present a judicial association’s award recognizing a non-judicial official’s efforts to improve diversity in the court system at a free cultural event hosted by the official, provided the event is not sponsored by or affiliated with any campaign committee or other political organization.  Such conduct is not rendered impermissible merely because the official is in his/her election year.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.5(A)(1); 100.5(A)(1)(d)-(e); Opinions 25-161; 25-64; 23-122; 23-98; 12-49.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judges, as officers of a judicial association, ask if they may present an elected non-judicial official with an award from the association at a free cultural event hosted by that official using state funds.  The award is intended to recognize the official’s efforts to improve diversity in the court system.  Although the official is in his/her election year, the inquiring judges note that the event is not sponsored by or affiliated with the official’s campaign committee or any other political organization.  They also propose to advise the official’s staff in advance of their ethical limitations, including the restrictions on political activity.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  A judge may engage in extra-judicial activities that are compatible with judicial office and that do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) detract from the dignity of judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  However, a judge must not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).

          We have previously advised that a judge may attend cultural/holiday celebrations hosted by elected public officials, where such events are not fund-raisers and are paid for by state/government funds rather than campaign funds (see Opinions 25-161; 25-64; 23-122).  As we noted, “the mere fact that [a cultural] event is hosted by an elected nonjudicial official does not render it an impermissible political gathering” (Opinion 23-122 [citation omitted]).  Moreover, provided the judge complies with generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct, a judge may take a prominent role at such events, whether by judging a “free hat contest/pageant” at a festive cultural event hosted by two legislators (Opinion 25-64) or by presiding in a mock video arraignment during a county executive’s state of the county speech (see Opinion 12-49).  Indeed, we expressly noted in Opinion 12-49 that “neither the judge’s presence nor the judge’s proposed participation in the mock video arraignment, without more, would create any reasonable public perception that the judge is endorsing the county executive or his/her policies” (id.).

          Also relevant to the present inquiry, we have advised that a judicial association may “honor an elected official at a non-fund-raising event for their role in increasing diversity in the judiciary, provided the event is not political” (see Opinion 23-98).

          Our precedents thus indicate that a judge may present a judicial association’s award recognizing a non-judicial official’s efforts to improve diversity in the court system at a free cultural event hosted by the official, provided the event is not sponsored by or affiliated with any campaign committee or other political organization (see Opinions 25-161; 25-64; 23-122; 23-98; 12-49).

          The only question is whether such conduct is rendered impermissible merely because the inquiring judges are aware the official is currently running for election.  In our view, it is not.  Accordingly, we conclude the judges may attend and present the award, provided they abide by generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.

          Each judge must of course refrain from “publicly endorsing” the official (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][e]) or “permitting his or her name to be used” in connection with the official’s campaign (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][d]), but we understand that the judges plan to advise the official’s staff in advance of these and other ethical limitations.