Opinion 26-94

May 7, 2026

Digest:   (1) Assuming compliance with applicable law, a judge may offer judicial internships to students who reside outside the United States and are not United States citizens.
(2) The judge may provide a letter verifying factual details of the internship for purposes of a student’s visa application, and may place it on judicial letterhead.  The judge should refrain from requesting favorable consideration of the visa application or otherwise urging immigration authorities to approve the visa.
(3) We cannot approve or revise the judge’s proposed letter.

Rules:    22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); Opinions 25-102; 24-153; 23-223; 22-178; 22-04; 18-138; 18-128; 16-12; 15-92(B); 14-33; 13-179; 12-10; 03-51; 03-47.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge would like to offer summer internships to students from a foreign university.  Because the students are non-citizens who reside outside the United States, the judge indicates they must obtain visas to travel to the United States for the internship.  The university has prepared a proposed “acceptance letter” for the judge to sign, addressed to the American consulate, which would (a) confirm factual details about the court’s internship program and the selected interns and (b) request “favorable consideration of this visa application.”  The judge asks if it is permissible to accept such students as judicial interns and to sign a letter supporting the students’ visa applications, and whether such letters may be placed on official judicial letterhead.  The judge also attaches a copy of the university’s proposed letter and asks us, in effect, to approve or revise it.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2).  To that end, a judge must “respect and comply with the law” and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  In addition, a judge must neither “lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others” nor “testify voluntarily as a character witness” (22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).

          Nothing in the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct prohibits a judge from accepting judicial interns who are not citizens of the United States or who reside outside the United States.  Judges commonly supervise law students and interns as part of educational programs designed to promote understanding of the law and the judicial process.

          Accordingly, assuming that the internship arrangement complies with applicable law, including any immigration or visa requirements governing the students’ presence and activities in the United States, the judge may accept foreign students as judicial interns, subject to any other requirements of the Unified Court System.

          Regarding the judge’s remaining questions, we have advised that a judge generally may not write letters to government agencies advocating on behalf of individuals seeking governmental benefits or determinations (see e.g. Opinions 22-178; 14-33; 03-51; 03-47).  For example, in Opinion 03-47, we opined that a judge should not write a letter at the request of a waiter known to the judge and the judge’s family in support of his application for “Alien Labor Certification.”  

          At the same time, we have consistently distinguished between vouching for an individual’s character or other impermissible advocacy and merely attesting to facts within the judge’s personal knowledge.  The Rules do not prohibit a judge from providing factual information concerning matters personally known to the judge (see e.g. Opinions 18-138; 18-128; 12-10).  Applying these principles, we have said a judge may write a letter to the American Consulate in a foreign country declaring the judge’s invitation to his/her relatives to visit him/her in the United States (see Opinion 15-92[B]).  Moreover, we recently advised that a judge who has hired a foreign national as a personally appointed law clerk may write a letter to immigration authorities verifying factual details of the clerk’s employment in support of a visa application, as the judge was uniquely positioned to confirm the relevant facts (see Opinion 25-102).

          The circumstances here are analogous.  The inquiring judge is in a position to confirm factual details concerning the internship, including its duration, location, educational purpose, and lack of compensation.  A letter limited to such factual information does not constitute a character reference and cannot reasonably be viewed as an attempt to improperly influence immigration authorities.

          Accordingly, the judge may provide a letter verifying factual details of the internship for purposes of the students’ visa applications.  However, the judge should ensure that the letter is limited to factual information within the judge’s personal knowledge.  The judge should not include language urging immigration authorities to grant the visa application, requesting favorable consideration of the application, or otherwise advocating for a particular outcome.  Such advocacy could create the appearance that the judge is lending the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests before a government agency (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]; Opinions 14-33; 03-51; 03-47).

          Where a judge is providing factual verification concerning an official judicial internship in the judge’s chambers, it is permissible to place the letter on judicial letterhead (see Opinion 25-102).  As in Opinion 25-102, the internship relates directly to the judge’s official judicial duties and the judge is verifying facts concerning an official court-related activity.

          Finally, with respect to the proposed/sample acceptance letter, we have repeatedly advised that we are not in a position to review, edit, or approve a judge’s proposed writings (see e.g. Opinions 24-153; 23-223; 22-04; 16-12).  Here, too, we must decline to revise or approve the specific wording of the proposed letter.  As discussed above, the judge should ensure that his/her letter is limited to factual information concerning the internship without crossing the line into advocacy for the students’ visa application.  For example, the judge should not include language requesting “favorable consideration” of the visa application or otherwise urging immigration authorities to grant the visa.