Opinion 25-125

September 10, 2025

Digest:  A judge may participate in a college club panel discussion about the rule of law in the United States.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.0(M); 100.0(V); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 25-68; 25-60; 25-22; 19-120; 17-54; 10-178; 10-171; 91-139.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge has been invited by college students to participate in a panel discussion focused on the rule of law in the United States. The panel would be co-hosted by the college’s legal studies and political engagement clubs during the academic year.  The club representatives wish to include “a range of perspectives” and emphasize that the panel is intended “to facilitate conversation, not to promote any particular viewpoint.” As planned, the event will “explore a variety of legal and constitutional challenges” related to the rule of law, including actions taken by the current presidential administration, the treatment of legal institutions, judicial standards, and immigration policies.  The judge asks if it is ethically permissible to participate.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on his/her impartiality; detract from the dignity of judicial office; or interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  A judge must refrain from any public comment on a “pending” or “reasonably foreseeable” proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories, although he/she may explain “for public information the procedures of the court” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]; 100.0[V]).  A judge also must not engage “directly or indirectly in any political activity” unless an exception applies (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]). 

          A judge generally may participate in panel discussions on topics relating to the law, the legal system or the administration of justice, such as court consolidation (see Opinion 10-178), justice court reforms (see Opinion 10-171), or the legal age for persons in need of supervision (see Opinion 91-139).  Moreover, a judge may discuss and publicly advocate for judicial independence and the rule of law in a variety of non-political forums (see e.g. Opinions 25-68; 25-60; 25-22; 17-54). 

          Such activities are, of course, subject to generally applicable restrictions such as the public comment rule and limitations on political activity (see Opinions 25-68; 19-120; 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]; 100.5[A][1]).  In Opinion 17-54, for example, where a judge wished to speak about judicial independence at a court-sponsored Law Day event, we said the judge “should focus on the law to avoid casting doubt on his/her ability to perform judicial functions appropriately consistent with his/her legal and ethical duties,” rather than commenting on the remarks of a sitting public official.  In Opinion 25-68, we also noted that a judge should not “comment on the specific pending or impending cases which ostensibly occasioned” certain inflammatory rhetoric against the judiciary.

          Here, the panel discussion will take place in an academic setting, and the sponsoring college student clubs are clearly not “political organizations” under the rules (see 22 NYCRR 100.0[M]).  Given that the event will focus on the rule of law, we conclude the inquiring judge may participate, subject to generally applicable limitations on speech and conduct as noted above (see e.g. Opinions 25-68; 25-60; 25-22; 19-120; 17-54).