Opinion 25-88

June 26, 2025

Digest:  It is ethically permissible for a judge to maintain and post to a social media account, so long as such posts comply with the speech and conduct provisions of the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct.  Whether the judge may post photographs with particular individuals and groups depends on context.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A), (C); 100.3(A); 100.3(B)(8); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.4(C)(3)(b)(i), (iv); 100.4(G); Opinions 25-64; 23-134; 23-129; 23-122; 22-119; 21-22(B); 20-58; 15-121; 10-174; 09-240/09-241/10-06; 08-176; 06-170; 01-14; 99-137.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if he/she may post on a personal Facebook page photos of the judge attending community events, including photos with military veterans, individuals who work in law enforcement, or members of a political party, where the posts will make no mention of fund-raising.  As the judge is not within his/her window period for election or re-election to judicial office, we presume none of these events are sponsored by any political organization and there would be “no mention of [any] political party” in the judge’s posts.

          A judge must 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 may not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance any private interest (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and may not personally participate in soliciting funds or other fund-raising activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[C][3][b][i], [iv]).  The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities (see 22 NYCRR 100.3[A]), and thus the judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must not cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge, detract from the dignity of judicial office, or interfere with proper performance of judicial duties (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[A][1]-[3]). 

          We are increasingly called upon to advise judges on using social media in a variety of contexts.  There is no general prohibition on judges maintaining personal social media accounts on Facebook or elsewhere (see e.g. Opinion 22-119).  However, judges “should exercise an appropriate degree of discretion” and must comply with the Rules Governing Judicial Conduct in doing so (Opinion 08-176).  “[A] judge should recognize the public nature of anything they place on a social network page and tailor any postings accordingly” (Opinion 21-22[B]).  As we explained in Opinion 22-119:

A judge’s online activities are subject to generally applicable limitations on judicial speech and conduct.  For instance, a full-time judge may not proffer legal advice (see 22 NYCRR 100.4[G]) or comment publicly on “a pending or impending proceeding in any court within the United States or its territories” (22 NYCRR 100.3[B][8]). The public nature of communications on social media platforms requires that the judge be “mindful of the appearance created when he/she establishes a connection with an attorney or anyone else appearing in the judge’s court through a social network” (Opinion 08-176; see also Opinion 20-58 [“a judge’s personal social media website is likely to be seen as inviting or encouraging interaction with the judge”]). In addition, a judge must take care that their online connections and comments do not derogate from the independence of the judiciary or impair public confidence in the judge’s integrity and impartiality (cf. Opinion 01-14 [justice court website may not link to a site maintained by a Megan’s Law advocacy group]); nor invite impermissible ex parte discussions or suggest that the judge’s judicial decisions may be impermissibly influenced by public reactions (see Opinion 20-58); nor create an impression that the judge is engaging in impermissible political activity (see Opinion 15-121 [even during the applicable window period, “it would not be appropriate for a judicial candidate to ‘like’ or ‘friend’ any political Facebook page from his/her own personal Facebook account”] [emphasis added]).

However, we have also recognized that interaction with others on social media platforms “is unlikely problematic when a judge posts about personal hobbies, social events, or milestones with friends and family, and a wide variety of other such ordinary, non-political topics unrelated to his/her judicial office” (see Opinion 20-58). 

          We offered additional guidance about the use of social media in Opinion 23-129, where we warned:

Judges must exercise caution in using social media (see Opinion 08-176).  Indeed, we have urged judges to “employ an appropriate level of prudence, discretion and decorum in how they make use of this technology, above and beyond what is specifically described” in Opinion 08-176, as it is “not difficult” to find “news reports regarding negative consequences and notoriety for social network users who used social networks haphazardly” (id.).  This guidance remains true today, as we seek to prevent ethical dilemmas, rather than to invite them . . .

As we have also noted, “the more frequently and prominently a judge references his/her judicial position on his/her personal social media website, the greater the risk he/she will be seen as using that judicial position to advance his/her private interests” (Opinion 20-58). 

          It is in this context that we evaluate the present inquiry.  It is difficult to give more than general advice to the inquirer, who merely asks in very general terms about posting photographs that include individuals from certain broad categories posing with the judge.  We note that judges may attend purely social functions of law enforcement organizations (see e.g. Opinions 06-170; 99-137), attend events with veterans and veterans’ associations (see e.g. Opinions 23-134; 10-174), and appear with elected officials at a variety of non-political events (see e.g. Opinions 25-64; 23-122; 09-240/09-241/10-06).   Where appearing at such events in public is permissible, we see no objection to posting images of such events on social media in a manner that does not suggest impermissible activity by the judge.

          Beyond these general guidelines, we cannot comment on hypothetical images the judge contemplates posting on social media.