Opinion 25-51

March 27, 2025

Digest:  A judge may be a member of a federal judiciary study group organized by the League of Women Voters.  If the group becomes involved in partisan political activity or discussion, the judge must resign.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 25-22; 24-84; 22-150; 19-120; 19-115; 10-171; 09-244; 99-60; 98-101; 96-38.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge has been asked by the League of Women Voters, an apparently non-partisan and not-for-profit civic organization, to participate in its federal judiciary study group.  The study group’s goal is to assist the League of Women Voters in developing a position on the federal judiciary (the U.S. Supreme Court “and other Article III federal courts”), addressing concerns regarding “judicial accountability, transparency, independence, and ethics.”  The judge asks if it is permissible to participate.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety and act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2[A]).  Although judicial duties “take precedence” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]), a judge may engage in extra-judicial activities that are compatible with judicial office and do not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s impartiality, detract from the dignity of the office, or interfere with judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]).  A judge may participate in an organization “devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” (22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3]), but must refrain from “directly or indirectly” engaging in impermissible political activity (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).

          We have previously recognized the League of Women Voters as a not-for-profit civic organization and advised that judges may participate in the League’s events or even assume leadership roles in local committees, so long as they do not take political positions (see Opinions 24-84; 99-60; 98-101; 96-38).  We have also advised that a judge may participate in a study on judicial diversity (see Opinion 19-115), a panel group discussion about judicial reform (see Opinion 10-171), and public debate regarding a proposed constitutional convention to reform the judiciary (see Opinion 09-244).  We recently concluded that a judge may register as a judicial reform expert consultant with the National Center for State Courts and participate in educational programs promoting the rule of law (see Opinion 25-22).

          Accordingly, provided the study group remains apolitical, the inquiring judge may participate subject to generally applicable limitations on speech and conduct (see Opinion 19-120).  For example, the judge may not publicly comment on pending or impending cases in the United States or its territories (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]), must refrain from discussions that would cast doubt on his/her capacity to act impartially as a judge or detract from the dignity of judicial office (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[2]), and should remain mindful of the “extensive restrictions” placed on judges “to help prevent the public perception of judicial entanglement in the political process” (Opinion 22-150).  If the judge finds that the study group is or becomes, contrary to the judge’s expectations, embroiled in partisan political activity or discussions, the judge must resign.