Opinion 26-61

March 26, 2026

Digest:  A judge may not attend a federal legislator’s one-day summit on Capitol Hill for leaders of a particular ethnic/cultural heritage from communities throughout New York where the topics are largely legislative and political in nature.

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.0(Q); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.3(A); 100.4(A)(1)-(3); 100.5(A)(1); 100.5(A)(1)(g); Opinions 25-161; 25-72; 25-64; 24-60; 19-138; 19-100; 12-49.

Opinion:

          The inquiring judge asks if he/she may attend a federal legislator’s one-day summit on Capitol Hill for leaders of a particular ethnic/cultural heritage from “communities throughout New York.”  The legislator will take questions during a question-and-answer period, will cover “how to apply for federal grants and appropriations” and “how [the legislator’s] office can assist individuals who need help with federal agencies alongside panels on subjects of immediate concern to” the specified ethnic/cultural community in New York.  In addition, members of the legislator’s staff “will be available to meet about specific policy and legislative ideas, local concerns and other pressing matters.”

In response to the judge’s question about the agenda, the legislator’s office explained they “will likely have a panel on immigration, one on grants and federal funding, and one on civic engagement” and that the panels will include both “DC staff and nonprofits to discuss prominent issues and get attendees connected with each other and our offices in DC.”  The judge is not currently seeking election or re-election to judicial office.

A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge’s judicial duties “take precedence over all the judge’s other activities” (22 NYCRR 100.3[A]).  A judge’s extra-judicial activities must be compatible with judicial office and must 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]).  Outside the applicable window period, for example, a judge must not attend “political gatherings” (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][g]; see 22 NYCRR 100.0[Q] [defining “window period”]).

          For events sponsored by an elected executive or legislative branch official, an initial threshold question is whether the event is impermissibly political in nature.  Where the event appears non-partisan, is not a fund-raiser, and is not sponsored or co-sponsored by any political organization or campaign committee, it may be permissible.  Under such circumstances, for example, we said a judge “may be a keynote speaker at a free event honoring military veterans that is hosted by a local elected official in partnership with a commercial entity” (Opinion 25-161); “may participate in a job fair hosted and sponsored by an executive branch official, which will be held in the rotunda of the county courthouse” (Opinion 25-72); “may attend a festive cultural event that is hosted by legislators . . . and open to the general public” (Opinion 25-64); “may speak about his/her judicial experiences at a federal legislator’s . . . youth cabinet meeting” (Opinion 19-100); and “may preside over a mock video arraignment for educational purposes during a county executive’s state of the county speech” (Opinion 12-49).

Conversely, a judge outside his/her window period may not participate in programs organized by legislators “where the program topics are legislative and political in nature” (Opinion 19-138).  Of particular note, we have advised that a judge “may not participate in a conference call organized by a federal legislator to help plan an event on Capitol Hill for individuals of a particular ethnic/cultural heritage” (id.).  The specific event envisioned in Opinion 19-138 was a “one-day event at the U.S. Capitol for those of a particular ethnic/cultural heritage nationwide to gather and attend workshops on issues such as immigration, education, and the workforce, the U.S. economy and trade” (id. [internal quotations omitted]).  The tentative agenda was going to include “‘breakout sessions’ and ‘meetings with Members of Congress’” (id.).

          We have also advised that a judge who is not in his/her window period may not attend a “legislative caucus weekend” in Albany, even as a volunteer chaperone for students (see Opinion 24-60).  Although the legislative caucus weekend addressed in Opinion 24-60 was sponsored by a not-for-profit organization rather than individual legislators, as we explained (id. [citation and footnote omitted]):

Despite NYSABPRL’s stated non-political and non-partisan purposes, we believe its annual conference is undoubtedly a legislative gathering.  The event is hosted exclusively by the NYSABPRL, whose members and leadership are all elected state legislators.  The conference is dedicated to discussions and information on legislative budget access and the process.  Indeed, it includes at least one political caucus-hosted meeting and multiple legislator-hosted networking events and issues workshops.  Several conference sessions are designed to spark debate about issues that may be before the state legislature for review.  Participation by a judge would give the impression that the judge is directly or indirectly engaging in a political process, advocacy and/or providing opinions on legislative topics.

Here, the proposed one-day summit on Capitol Hill includes topics such as how to obtain federal grants and other funding, discussion of “specific policy and legislative ideas, local concerns and other pressing matters,” as well as a panel on immigration.  In our view, the matters to be discussed are largely legislative and political in nature, creating at the very least an appearance that participants are directly or indirectly engaging in a political process, advocacy and/or providing opinions on legislative topics.  Accordingly, as the inquiring judge is not in his/her window period, he/she may not attend.