This month, the U.S. Judicial Conference issued new ethics guidelines, a publication that rarely attracts attention beyond a small circle of legal nerds. These guidelines, however, are not just the usual tweaks on rules governing free meals or travel. They include a new policy that could materially alter the character of the American courts, allowing judges to engage in commentary to rebut what they deem “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks.” It is not just injudicious, it is dangerous.
Over two centuries ago, the Framers had to sell the Constitution to skeptical states leery about yielding power to a central government, including federal courts. In Federalist #78, Alexander Hamilton sought to put these fears aside and assured the states that the federal judiciary is “the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.”
One can certainly disagree with Hamilton whether history has borne out his prediction that the court would have the least capacity to “annoy” others in our system. However, Hamilton’s pitch would later be reinforced by the adoption of apolitical ethical standards in our courts that separated them from political activities and commentary.
It did not begin that way. Early federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, were often openly partisan. Federalist judges took active roles in hunting down Jeffersonians under the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts.
That changed as the nation embraced a new model of judges who would stand apart from politics. While judges often reflect the ideological views of the presidents who nominated them, they have largely followed rigid rules that have prevented them from engaging in political commentary. Judges are expected to address the legal issues in their opinions and leave political commentary to others regarding the implications or basis of those opinions.
It has not been a perfect system. Recently, some of us have criticized judges who have made overtly political statements in their opinions or in public. The deviation from the traditional line of judicial silence has grown in recent years.
I previously wrote about this pattern of extrajudicial commentary, including inappropriate commentary in court statements and opinions. These comments often undermined the integrity of the court and the public’s faith in the neutrality of our judges.
District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, an Obama appointee, was criticized for failing to recuse herself from the Special Counsel’s case against President Donald Trump after she made highly controversial statements about him from the bench. Chutkan lashed out at “a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day.” That “one person” was still under investigation at the time, and when Trump was charged, Chutkan refused to let the case go.
Chutkan later doubled down when asked to dismiss a case due to Trump pardoning Jan. 6 defendants. After acknowledging that she could not block the pardons, she proclaimed that the pardons could not change the “tragic truth” and “cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake. And it cannot repair the jagged breach in America’s sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power.”
One of Chutkan’s colleagues, Judge Beryl Howell, also an Obama appointee, denounced a Trump policy as “a revisionist myth relayed in this presidential pronouncement.”
Then there is Judge Amit Mehta, another Obama appointee, who has been criticized for conflicted rulings in Trump cases and his bizarre (and ultimately abandoned) effort to banish January 6th defendants from the Capitol. He called Trump’s policies “shameful.”
D.C. Circuit Judge Reggie Walton called Trump a “charlatan.”
U.S. District Judge Robert Pratt of the Southern District of Iowa made public comments calling Trump a “criminal.”
Other federal judges have made other public statements denouncing Trump and Republican priorities. Even before this change, these judges felt that they could engage in such political declarations.
Even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson declared publicly how she sees her position as a judge “as a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do.”
Last year, the Supreme Court condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for his attacks on Trump as a bully bent on “retribution.” He also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and asked in one order, “Have we no shame?”
There is no paucity of such criticism in our country. Many pundits have leveled such attacks against the President, but this was a sitting judge. These judges are using their offices to amplify their personal outrage over policies. The result is that they are erasing the distinction between our courts and our politics.
Given these increasingly injudicious comments, one would think that Chief Justice John Roberts and the Judicial Conference would seek to tighten, not loosen, the limits on judicial commentary.
I am not suggesting that these past statements would be viewed as acceptable under the new rules. However, I fail to understand, in light of such controversial statements, the Conference elected to relax the rules at this time. I fail to see why it is so intolerable for judges to leave such commentary to others as the cost of holding one of these privileged Article III positions in our system.
In this “age of rage,” it is more important than ever that our judges stand above the political debate and distemper. The public needs to look to one branch that is detached and deliberative, rather than participants in our national pandemonium.
I have long admired Chief Justice Roberts and have been sympathetic to his efforts to defend the courts, including his response to personal attacks on judges by the President and others. I have also opposed calls to impeach judges such as James Boasberg despite my strong disagreement with some of his past opinions.
However, this ill-conceived change could not come at a worse time. Just as federal judges are raising eyebrows over their extrajudicial comments, the Conference is giving them a green light for such commentary.
What the new advisory opinion calls “measured defense” of the judiciary is so vague that the most irresponsible judges are likely to pour into the breach. They can now speak out against any threats that they deem are “undermining judicial independence or the rule of law..regardless of whether these comments rise to the level of persecution.”
In 2024, Chief Justice Roberts spoke of activities that “either threaten the judges themselves,” including “Violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy court orders.”
Many of us supported him in those comments. The Chief Justice has historically spoken for the bench on such threats.
Now, however, he and the Conference have enabled other jurists to engage in such commentary to the detriment of the judiciary as a whole. They will now face a slippery slope on what constitutes a “measured defense” by judges eager to further push the envelope on allowable commentary.
The added freedom afforded to judges to engage in commentary will do little to change the debate. It may, however, greatly erode the trust in what was once considered “our least dangerous branch.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and author of the New York Times bestseller “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Here are the new guidelines: New Judicial Guidelines
Really. It’s madness. Nothing can result of this but having kangaroos spread across the entire judiciary. What the hey is going on? None of this makes any kind of sense, and seems to me to be another facet of the continual chipping away at our system. It’s a drip, drip, drip, rather than a revolution as with Mao et. al., but it sure feels ominous, all the same, and when enough drips have pooled, it doesn’t take much of a push for a flood.
Dangerous is right. Perilous, even.
“None of this makes any kind of sense, and seems to me to be another facet of the continual chipping away at our system.”
Sadly that is *exactly* the sense it does make. While some of the specific examples of the induced chaos may be randomly produced, the effort to produce that chaos is anything but random. None of this is accidental…
JT is Saber-rattling the authority of U.S. Judicial Conference of which overrides the narrative of his opinion piece here.
A properly made scabbard does not allow a sword to rattle – of which the U.S. Judicial Conference has been for 104 years (1922 – Present)
Administrative Bodies: Judicial Conference of the United States, 1948-present
Originally Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, 1922-1948
In 1922, Congress established the Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, the first national organization of federal judges. With the chief justice presiding, the senior judge (now known as chief judge) of each circuit court of appeals gathered to report on the judicial business of the federal courts and to advise Congress on possible improvements in judicial administration. Although the conference’s role was largely advisory until the Administrative Office of the United States Courts was established in 1939, the conference became an important means of communicating the needs of the judiciary to Congress and the members of the executive branch involved in the administration of the courts. The Judicial Code of 1948 changed the name of the conference to the Judicial Conference of the United States and other laws expanded membership to include district judges (1957) and the chief judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade (1986). The Judicial Conference today serves as the national policy-making body for the federal courts.
Judicial Conference of the United States – 28 U.S. Code § 331
????
See, 28 USC 355: Action by Judicial Conference Text contains those laws in effect on February 17, 2026, Ch. 16
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:28%20section:355%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title28-section355)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim
Justice Roberts showed his cowardice with the Obamacare decision. Why expect a backbone now?
“I have long admired Chief Justice Roberts and have been sympathetic to his efforts to defend the courts”
What’s missing here is any similar political histronics from judges about the previous Democrat president’s character and policies
Yes, you have long admired Chief Justice Roberts. Just as you for years told us you deeply admired and respected Attorney General Merrick Garland. Those Roberts decisions to save Obamacare as a tax (that the Senate apparently didn’t realize they were debating and passing as a tax) will go down as some of the most admirable decisions on the Constitution and separation of powers in our American history! (No harm done to the First Amendment in those, of course)
The card carrying band of brothers from the Washington DC Bar Association like Roberts, Garland, Boasberg (and the gals like Chudkin and Howell) sure have each others backs. However, saving with faint criticism is sometimes necessary when you’re one of that brotherhood who makes fine coin as a scribe writing about your fellow members’ judicial political propaganda and work.
Hollywood John Roberts is doing a FINE job of leading the judiciary and setting the standards. Any day now he will accept help from the FBI to hunt down who leaked the Dobbs decision and by doing so subjected Associate Justices to Democrat street thugs and threats!
Today there are about 677 U. S. District judges. Only a small number of them have dispayed the pompous attitudes of judges mentioned in this article, it is sufficent to darken the opinion of many Americans towards the federal judiciary. This is not good. Sure, judges are Ameriocan and have political opinions but to express those personal opinions in official statements or in their court opinions deters from the value of the judical branch of government. From a legal standpoint, who cares, for example, what Judge Chutkan thinks persoanlly? The same goes for other judges mentioned in this piece. They are called “DISTRICT” judges for a reason: they are charged with interpreting the law in their districts not on the national level. This is why there are federal rules of court governing venue.
Yeah, and the rest of the country should ignore Federal court rulings from New Orleans.
Anon 11:22 is a smart comment. Yours not all all. If fact childish. You’re welcome.
You know of their “pompous attitudes” solely because conservative propagandists have amplified and widely published accounts in an effort to give the impression it is wide-spread and therefore that the judicial system is corrupt and untrustworthy, abandoning judicial control to the Executive branch.
Turley was laser focused on the judges and completely ignored the reason why we’re seeing more extrajudicial commentary. Trump. Yes, Trump. He left out the biggest reason why judges are loosening the rules a bit so they can defend themselves against Trumps direct personal attacks on judges he does not like and his administration’s blatant lawlessness, ignoring court orders, and outright lying to judges to circumvent basic constitutional rights because they are in inconvenient obstacle to his rapid agenda implementation.
The professor, as usual, laid his focus on Democrat appointed judges and sort-of bypassing some Republican judges in his criticism. Big surprise.
He slightly mentioned Chief Justice Roberts pushback against the Trump administration’s personal attacks on judges. Which, again, traces right back at Trump and his administration. Turley leaves out the sad fact that this all started when Trump come into office and attacked every judge who presided over civil and criminal cases against him. He went as far as attacking a judge’s family, witnesses, and prosecutors and it earned him well deserved gag order/s.
Judge James Boasberg (2025): After Boasberg halted the administration’s mass deportation efforts, Trump called him a “Radical Left Lunatic” and “crooked”, demanding his impeachment.
Judge Gonzalo Curiel (2016): Trump famously attacked Judge Curiel, who presided over the Trump University lawsuit, claiming he had an inherent bias due to his “Mexican heritage” while Trump was campaigning to build a wall.
Judge Arthur Engoron (2023–2024): During his New York civil fraud trial, Trump labeled Engoron a “very hostile judge” and attacked his wife on social media, accusing her of bias.
Judge Juan Merchan (2024): In his Manhattan criminal case, Trump frequently called Merchan “corrupt” and targeted Merchan’s daughter, calling her a “Rabid Trump Hater” because of her political work.
Judge James Robart (2017): After Robart blocked his initial travel ban, Trump referred to him as a “so-called judge” whose ruling was “ridiculous.”
Judge Lewis Kaplan (2024): During civil defamation proceedings, Trump claimed Kaplan “hated President Donald J. Trump more than is humanly possible” and called him a “terrible person.”
This is a small sampling of Trump attacking judges and threatening the integrity of court proceedings.
What Turley did not say is how these judges at first exercised restraint in the face of unrelenting personal attacks. Some judge’s comments were directed at Trump administration AUSA’s and DA’s who were either arguing in extremely bad faith or deliberately frustrating court proceedings to delay the process.
Comments by judges Turley talks about were rare before Trump came on the scene. Now after 10 years of Trump insanity it’s become common enough that a change in ethics rules became inevitable.
…Amusing that you “completely ignored” and “left out” (your learned tactic of criticism) that Obama attacked SCOTUS at his SOTU address, in front of a global audience, and Biden, well…
“After the Supreme Court ruled presidents enjoy broad immunity in official acts, President Biden gave a speech lambasting the high court in a manner many observers considered unprecedented.”
https://nypost.com/2024/07/08/us-news/bidens-dangerous-supreme-court-criticism-unprecedented-experts-say/
See, also: https://eppc.org/publication/joe-bidens-final-attack-on-the-courts/ from the Ethics and Policy Center.
It becomes more clear every day, X, that your naive comments (excuse my insertion of adjective opinion) are narrowly premised on a platform of media coverage rather than personal education or smarts. Thanks. (and I don’t need to hide behind an X moniker).
Lin, fine examples of when Obama and Biden chastised the court/s once. Their public chastising was on the merits of a court decision, personal attacks on judges AND their families. Big difference.
When Obama criticized the court during SOTU it was unprecedented because it was Obama, a president who is and was seen as above making such comments. It was one time. BUT…..Trump who engaged and continues to engage in personal attacks and crazy unhinged criticisms of judges and courts including their families is so common now that it’s easy to dismiss because Trump is Trump. Never mind the death threats, harassment, and the need for federal marshals to provide extra security to judges because Trump’s supporters take his criticism of judges as permission to harass and intimidate judges and their families. Right?
You don’t seem to understand or bother to recognize the fact Trump has a long embarrassing history of attacking judges and the courts including court staff, witnesses, and judge’s families. And you try to compare that with Obama’s single criticism during a SOTU speech? Really? Giving judges a little leeway in dealing with Trump doesn’t seem like a bad idea. Especially when you or other Trump supporters don’t have any interest in holding Trump accountable for forcing judges and courts into a position where they have to change the rules a bit to deal with his constant attacks.
Lin, I’m surprised you added an ad hominem attack to your weak rebuttal.
Its time we give george hi sdue, he’s the new Drudge report, so George Drudge keep on dredging.
Judges Criticized by Obama
Supreme Court Justices
John Roberts: Nominated as Chief Justice by George W. Bush, Roberts was criticized by Obama for his judicial philosophy, particularly during the confirmation of the Affordable Care Act. Obama argued that Roberts’ approach could undermine healthcare access.
Samuel Alito: Nominated by George W. Bush, Alito was criticized by Obama for his role in the Citizens United v. FEC decision, which Obama claimed opened the door for unlimited corporate spending in elections. During a State of the Union address, Obama publicly expressed his disapproval of the ruling, leading to Alito’s visible dissent.
Other Notable Judges
Clarence Thomas: Nominated by George H.W. Bush, Thomas has often been a target of criticism from Obama and other Democrats for his conservative rulings, particularly regarding civil rights and campaign finance.
Antonin Scalia: The late Justice Scalia was frequently criticized by Obama for his originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which Obama believed often led to decisions that were out of touch with contemporary societal values.
Context of Criticism
Obama’s criticisms often stemmed from significant rulings that he believed negatively impacted social justice, healthcare, and campaign finance. His administration faced challenges in advancing its agenda due to these judicial decisions, leading to public statements and critiques of the justices involved.
Wikipedia
to say that one may be “naive” is not an ad hominem. Please don’t use big words on this blog unless you understand them.
Trump attacks the judges for television awards. One could stop with “Trump attacks.” It’s never necessary to have a justification for the attack, that’s all he does. The only similarity in nature is a pile of highly radioactive material that kills or damages everything that comes near.
“Lin, fine examples of when Obama and Biden chastised the court/s once. Their public chastising was on the merits of a court decision, personal attacks on judges AND their families. Big difference.”
The attacks on Gini Thomas have gone on for DECADES.
Alito gets attacked over the flags his wife flies.
Do not pretend the left does not attack Judges families.
Further it is the left that will not allow people whose views they disagree with to eat in peace at resturaunts or to walk the streets without harrassment.
The lack of civility in Politics was ENTIRELY started by the left and that has been true ALL MY LIFE.
It is the Left that attacked soldiers drafted to go to Vietnam as “baby killers”
That today is doing the same vile nonsense to the officers of ICE as it did to Vietnam Vets 50 years ago.
It was disgusting THEN and it is as bad now.
When you oppose the actions of the Government -“attack” the president, congress. Do not go after those responsible for enforceing the law for following lawful orders.
But you left wing nuts LOVE naming and shaming anyone who disagrees with you, and espeicially those merely doing their jobs.
You are revolting, and vile.
Trump is atleast attacking people who deserve the criticism they are receiving.
“When Obama criticized the court during SOTU it was unprecedented because it was Obama, a president who is and was seen as above making such comments. It was one time.”
Correct, Obama’s “style” and language was to respectfully put the knife in and twist it.
Regardless, the personal attack on SCOTUS in the SOTUS was unprecidented and wrong and opened the floodgates.
Trump and his Style was from the Start the RESPONSE to decades of bad conduct by Democrats.
You attacked Palin PERSONALLY,
YOU LIED about GWB’s military record – you went after his Family.
Obama “quietly” started the weaponization of the government against political enemies”.
Trump was the predictable result.
Trump is popular because “He Fights”
Because he “punches back twice as hard”
Because he is fighting both against YOUR attacks on him, and YOUR attacks on ordinary americans.
Trump’s supporters KNOW when he attacks the left – he is attacking the same people who consider THEM deplorables,
“magots”, ….
If Trump did not exist – he would have had to be created to respond to you.
Turn about is fair play.
Civility is not “one sided”.
You are not entitled to civility if you do not give it to others.
“Trump who engaged and continues to engage in personal attacks and crazy unhinged criticisms of judges and courts including their families is so common now that it’s easy to dismiss because Trump is Trump.”
Trump is the response to YOUR CONDUCT.
The left has been living in the politics of personal destruction for most of my lifetime.
Again all the way back to calling vietnam vets baby killers.
What is knew is a Republican that “fights back”.
Get over it.
” Never mind the death threats, harassment, and the need for federal marshals to provide extra security to judges because Trump’s supporters take his criticism of judges as permission to harass and intimidate judges and their families. Right?”
So far who has actually been assassinated ? or attempted to be assassinated ?
You made Luigi Mangione a hero for murdering a CEO.
You have nearly Killed Trump twice and attacked him many more times.
You murdered Charlie Kirk.
What have an Epidemic of MTF Trans mass murders. Are you saying those are “right wing” ?
We have death threats against Trump by Celebrities,
We have death Threats against ICE by left wing randos on TikTok.
We have death threats against ICE and their families
Judges have federal marshalls and there are only 600+ federal judges.
There are 6000 ICE officers and 21000 ICE employees – who is defending them fropm death threats ?
You have harrassed ICE in hotels while they try to sleep, in resturaunts where they try to eat.
Why should those officer NOT beleive a few of you will come to their homes and kill their families ?
What judge is being harrased the way ANY ICE officer is ?
The only assassination attempt on a Judge has been th left wing nut who went after Kavanaugh.
Not interested in your attacks on Trump – while YOU are behaving 10,000 times worse.
“You don’t seem to understand or bother to recognize the fact Trump has a long embarrassing history of attacking judges and the courts including court staff, witnesses, and judge’s families. ”
Do not engage in lawfare and the politics of personal destruction – and you would have an argument.
There is not a Judge Trump has gone after that should be a judge.
“And you try to compare that with Obama’s single criticism during a SOTU speech?”
Yes, but it is much bigger than that.
The left has engaged in the politics of persona destruction through my entire life.
Republicans have done VERY LITTLE to fight back.
Trump became the Republican candidate in 2016 specifically because he “fought back”
You have made Trump into a hero. Trump has been willing to “punch back twice as hard”
The press covers every left wing loon that Attacks ICE, the police, republicans, ordinary people.
But they do not give the same coverage to republicans that fight back – EXCEPT Trump.
Trump is the Republican “Horatio at the bridge”, The 300 spartans, the men at the Alamo,
Except that he Wins.
Regardless end “the politics of personal destruction”, end the lawfare.
Quit fighting tooth and nail against things that 80% of the electorate demands.
and we will all expect Trump to moderate his criticism.
Hillary said that only half of Trump supporters were deplorable. The other half applied that label to themselves.
Those on the Left are optimistic and try to believe the best of people; those on the Right know their own true nature and revel in it.
The men at the Alamo died defending slavery. Excellent comparison.
George, again, your lies are astonishing.
What are the lies? Point them out.
I did, one by one.
What came first, the chicken or the egg? Judges made these comments about Trump first, or Trump made comments about them and their decisions and then they launched into their political screeds? And when will X finally create his own Marxist blog and end existing as a parasite dependent on Professor Turley’s blog?
Why don’t you have articles by author X on the Marxists Internet Archive?
https://www.marxists.org/admin/janitor/faq.htm
The writer is alive and well and politically active. The MIA’s Charter forbids us from building an archive for a writer who is still politically active. There are several reasons for this:
(1) It ensures that the MIA stays out of current disputes and
(2) remains independent of all political parties and groups; Also,
(3) if a writer is still alive, they can build their own web site. This does not prevent the MIA from using material also from politically active writers in an editorial role or in support of a subject section, so long as we have the author’s permission.
The problem with the Judiciary have nothing to do with Trump.
But a failure of left wing nuts to follow the law, and in many cases a failure to follow even Yesterdays supreme court decisions.
Accross the country we have a large body of stupid judicial decisions that accomplish nothing except wasting time and effort.
Few of these decisions survive appeal.
None survive the supreme court.
All are obvious garbage.
Yes despite these idiotic efforts at judicial sabotage – 980K illegal immigrants were deported last year.
1.2M illegal immigrants self deported last year.
BUT a few days ago an illegal immigrant with an illegally attained CDL from PA hit and killed a family of 4
Just hours ago an illegal ran into a special ed teacher and killed her.
There is a long list of americans killed by Illegals, there is a longer list of those defrauded, raped, beaten, or otherwise damaged by criminal illegals.
Compared to illegals, there is an infinite number of rapes, murders, beatings, fraud, committed by good old American citizens. Some might note that the vast majority of crimes are committed by White Christian Males, as per the Constitutional right to do so in America.
Anyone is free to criticise a Judge – for most of us it is unwise to do so with a case pending before them – no matter how much they might deserve that criticism.
But Contra this edict – it is NOT OK from Judges to “clap back”, and those judges that due should be recused from cases or removed entirely.
Judges should not be opining on the people who appear before them.
On the policies being challenged in cases before them
On any policies at all.
They must confine themselves to speaking through court rulings – not the media, and confining their expression to the law and constitution – not policy, not people.
That should be universal – regardless of left or right or personal politics.
If you can not do that – Do not be a judge.
If you wish to comment on policy people and politics – retire, and you can speak freely.
” it is NOT OK from Judges to “clap back””
So sayeth Jon Say.
I see Russia is getting pushed back and the citizens there are often sitting in the cold and the dark. Does the FSB pay well for this or is this a vanity project of yours?
“The professor, as usual, laid his focus on Democrat appointed judges”
Because their expression is political, and their decisions and actions outside the law and constitution.
I would note that Turley has criticized republican judges – for the same conduct.
“bypassing some Republican judges in his criticism.”
Find examples of republican judges that have made personal attackes, or policy statements from the bench. or whose decisions are being near universally overruled.
“He slightly mentioned Chief Justice Roberts pushback against the Trump administration’s personal attacks on judges.”
Correct – Turley respect Roberts,
Many of the rest of us DO NOT.
The courts MUST be SILENT in the face of criticism. They disprove criticism by conducting themselves above reproach and by decisions that uphold the law and constitution without editorial comment.
” Which, again, traces right back at Trump and his administration.”
Trump is more critical of judges than most – but Presidents criticising Judges and the courts is NOT NEW.
“Turley leaves out the sad fact that this all started when Trump come into office and attacked every judge who presided over civil and criminal cases against him. ”
Trump did not attack Cannon or MacAffee – that despite the fact that MacAffee should have recused himself as immediately before his appointment to the bench he was an election official in the 2020 Election.
Regardless Cannon and MacAffee followed that law and did not receive criticism from Trump.
“He went as far as attacking a judge’s family, witnesses, and prosecutors and it earned him well deserved gag order/s.”
Judges are supposed to recuse themselves when their family has financial ties to a case.
Family members are not protected when they are involved.
Regardless a judges authority is over the courtroom and over the officers of the court.
It is NOT over witnesses or defendants. Defendants can rail at the justice system all they wish.
The gag orders were idiotic and unconstitutional.
Further can you name a claim Trump made about a witness or judge or prosecutor that was false ?
So you condone gag orders so that biased judges can run kangarooo courts ?
Your lawless prosecutions may not be the SOLE reason Trump got elected – but they were a factor.
YOUR lawfare strategy backfired.
“”Judge James Boasberg (2025): After Boasberg halted the administration’s mass deportation efforts, Trump called him a “Radical Left Lunatic” and “crooked”, demanding his impeachment.”
Boasberg is a lunatic – and there is evidence of malfeasance long before 2025.
Further, Boasberg who is a judge with over a decade on the bench has UNIVERSALLY lost on appeal.
“Judge Gonzalo Curiel (2016): Trump famously attacked Judge Curiel, who presided over the Trump University lawsuit, claiming he had an inherent bias due to his “Mexican heritage” while Trump was campaigning to build a wall.”
So ?
“Judge Arthur Engoron (2023–2024): During his New York civil fraud trial, Trump labeled Engoron a “very hostile judge” and attacked his wife on social media, accusing her of bias.”
You mean the infamous “nipple judge” ?
The only question about Enmoron is why is it taking so long to toss his nonsense case entirely.
“Judge Juan Merchan (2024): In his Manhattan criminal case, Trump frequently called Merchan “corrupt” and targeted Merchan’s daughter, calling her a “Rabid Trump Hater” because of her political work.”
Merchan’s daughter was fundraising off the case – Merchan was obligated to recuse himself.
You need not believe Micheal Cohen – but even Micheal Cohen is now claiming he was coerced in his testimony against Trump, and was AGAIN lying under oath. There are required jury instructions for testimony of convicted perjurers – Merchan failed to do that.
Merchan also instructed the jury to consider uncharged crimes, for which no evidence was presented, and instructed that unanimity was not required to do so. Worse still he refused to allow Defense Testimony providing the conduct he allowed the jury to consider was legal,
Even Worse still – he asked a state jury to prosecute a federal claim, and did so without the claim being charged – in ANY court, and without the defense having any oportunity to present evidence and without requiring the prosecution to present evidence.
Merchan is the perfect example of a lawless judge.
“Judge James Robart (2017): After Robart blocked his initial travel ban, Trump referred to him as a “so-called judge” whose ruling was “ridiculous.”
SCOTUS agreed with Trump.
“Judge Lewis Kaplan (2024): During civil defamation proceedings, Trump claimed Kaplan “hated President Donald J. Trump more than is humanly possible” and called him a “terrible person.””
Kaplan conducted a trial without evidence – and denied Trump due process and the right to present evidence in his defense.
“This is a small sampling of Trump attacking judges and threatening the integrity of court proceedings.”
What has Trump said about any of these judges that has proved wrong ?
Contra left wing nuts – neither defendants nor their attorneys are EVER a threat to the integrity of court proceedings.
Neither have power. The power in court is with the judge and prosecutor.
It is ALWAYS their conduct that MUST be impeccable.
By FAR the largest threat to the integrity of our courts is lawless left wing nut judges – not outside criticism.
And that is precisely what is wrong with the revisions to the judicial code of conduct.
Criticism of the judiciary is ALWAYS warranted, and ALWAYS requires judicial introspection.
Rather than lashing out the courts should consider whether they have lost the trust of the people
which inarguably they have. And then work to remedy that.
Those attacking them – rightly or wrongly, are just the canary in the coal mines.
Canaries are used in coal mines because they let miners know that the mine has become dangerous BEFORE it harms humans.
Contra your claims the attacks on courts are a NECESSITY
They are like canaries in the coal mines.
They are like short Sellers on Wall Street.
They warn us of danger before it becomes fatal.
The market crashed in 2008 – right after SEC Chair Paulson banned short selling.
Without short sellors to gauge the magnitude of the problem – the financial markets assumed the very worst and tanked.
“What Turley did not say is how these judges at first exercised restraint in the face of unrelenting personal attacks.”
There is no “first excercised restraint” – they are ALWAYS to excercise restraint and they are ALWAYS to behave lawfully – they did not.
“Some judge’s comments were directed at Trump administration AUSA’s and DA’s who were either arguing in extremely bad faith or deliberately frustrating court proceedings to delay the process.”
False and irrelevant. First – in all the cases you cited Trump was the defendant.
So I presume you are refering to Current administration cases.
In those it is NOT the Trump administration that is liking to delay. It is what are usually PLAINTIFFS attorney’s who are suing the government.
AUSA’s are properly seeking to dismiss cases RAPIDLY for a variety of reason – high on the list being the court lack jurisdiction.
“Comments by judges Turley talks about were rare before Trump came on the scene.”
Somewhat, but the kind of lawfare being waged by the left was also rare.
The use of the law – both by government and by political parties to destroy political enemies was rare.
And has been almost entirely one sided.
YOU changed the rules of engagement.
“Now after 10 years of Trump insanity it’s become common enough that a change in ethics rules became inevitable.”
The rule change is just the courts stupidly trying to cast the blame elsewhere for their own failures.
It merely prolongs the inevitable.
The court MUST reform themselves – or they will be reformed.
The FSB is making great use of ChatGPT, or one of the variants, today.
“the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” Quoted from Hamilton by Professor Turley, as a senior lay citizen I can accept that Hamilton wrote that but not that it applies, to anything. Pursuant to Article VI of the Constitution, it “…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…” So, I don’t accept that there are, or ever were, any “political rights” in the Constitution; only ‘law and order.’ And, if the tenets of the Preamble had been enforced from the start (every state that ratified the Constitution also ratified the Preamble, in it’s entirety, not just the “We the People…” part (as Reagan misspoke it) we probably wouldn’t be in the raging bipartisan pickle we are in today. The right way to deal with all of the chaos is to vote the incumbent violators out of office every election day which, of course, would require a lot of adult Americans to pay a lot more attention to reality than to various forms of mere entertainment. Charles G. Shaver
I WHOLLY agree with Professor Turley on this.
I am reminded of the very recent unprofessional commentary from district judge Fred Biery regarding the young boy “Liam” (you know, the one in the blue bunny hat re-imaged ad nauseam by media) who was detained alongside his father (who asked that Liam stay with him):
Judge Biery engaged in what I consider wholly inappropriate and unprofessional attacks, to wit:
“The case has its genesis in the ill-conceived and incompetently-implemented government pursuit of daily deportation quotas, apparently even if it requires traumatizing children”
and,
“Observing human behavior confirms that for some among us, the perfidious lust for unbridled power and the imposition of cruelty in its quest know no bounds and are bereft of human decency…”
Not only was his language a bit of unprofessional overkill, but he engaged in assigning motive to the subject actions, which to me, warrants address.
I have NEVER been before a judge who would voice or engage in such personal attacks, I remain stunned.
I have NEVER been before a judge who would voice or engage in such personal attacks, I remain stunned. You wrote “would”. Why?
Are you a lawyer?
No, he’s not a lawyer. It’s just Estovir, as usual, pretending to be a commenter with real life experience.
(1) Yes, 100% litigation and appellate work as well as publication writing. And you?
(2) “who would engage in…” In addition to the perception of judges to which he negatively contributed, See Canon 2A, 2B and Canon 3A(1) and (3) for example.
Thanks.
“And you?” Hey, just asked pal, no need to jump down my throat.
The reason,. your writing skills are absolutely high school level. Insight… none whatsoever. Lawyer you say. Nope, in any way shape or form.
No you did not “just asked” – you falsely presumed
Worse you presumed that absent a JD one can not read court opinions.
“The reason,. [sic] your writing skills are absolutely high school level.”
What level teaches ending a sentence in a “,.”?
“Are you a lawyer?”
Beat the crap out of that straw man.
Court proceedings and judicial orders are nearly always public record.
Anyone can read them.
You do not have to be a lawyer.
In fact MOST lawyers read very little law today – aside from the opinions on their cases.
Only appelate lawyers have broad exposure to large numbers of judicial opinions.
But so do many many ordinary people who read judicial oppions frequently and
increasingly are making the public aware of the malfeasance that has been hidden in the dark corrners of legal proceedings for a long long time.
Lin,
Well said.
What did he say? Rather on the rant side, I would say.
Actually he (lin) didn’t say anything, he quoted a judge.
To add insult to injury, ICE was enforcing a law passed by Congress pursuant to the Constitution. So Judge Biery is not only impugning Trump he is impugning the entire process which gave him his job of job which is to enforce the law. And the issue about the children is another gigantic red herring. If a single parent commits a crime and is sentenced to prison, that parent is by definition separated from his or her child and the child is taken care of by the state in some form of CPS. The children don’t go to jail with their parents. The illegals who cross the border with their children take this risk. The responsibility for separation is theirs – not the administration which is duty bound under the constitution to enforce the law. I thought the favorite saying of the left relative to Trump is that “no one is above the law”, except of course if you are an immigrant who broke the law by illegally crossing the border.
Lin,
“ I have NEVER been before a judge who would voice or engage in such personal attacks, I remain stunned.”
We have never had the level of lawlessness and outright disregard for court orders from an administration either. Judges are seeing so many civil rights violations and administration authorities ignoring the law that pointing it out is now becoming common and warranted. It may be unprofessional to you, but it’s neither illegal nor unprecedented. Judges over the years have made comments like those Turley is critical of. Before Trump they were rare. Now they are almost a common occurrence due to the administration’s incompetence, lawlessness, and dishonesty.
Ah ha! The all knowing george. Nice fairy tale. You should publish.
“Now they are almost a common occurrence due to the administration’s incompetence, lawlessness, and dishonesty.”
Why do you always sound so hysterical?
“We have never had the level of lawlessness and outright disregard for court orders from an administration either.”
What court order that did not require a time machine to do so was disobeyed.
The judge in this particular case ordered the reutrn to MN of the child and his father – DHS complied.
But only a day later appelate courts ruled – there is no provision in in immigration law to grant bail to illegal immigrants,
Regardless, SCOTUS has already ruled that Article III court jurisdiction on those who have an outstanding and final deportation order is limited to Habeaus – a decision that court after court has tried to circumvent or ignore – including REPEATEDLY judge Boasberg.
There are possibly at most 100 cases in front to left wing nut judges that are attempts to stall the deportation process.
Ultimately the administration wins ALL of these. But not until the damage is done. Illegal immigrants are released and ICE must go out and engage in the sometimes dangerous process of arresting them again.
But the one positive side effect of SCOTUS’s immigration decisions is that the cases MUST proceed individually.
Judges are delaying the deportation of about 100 illegal immigrants a year – though no one wins in the long run.
They are forcing left wing nut groups to raise massive legal funding to fight these battles.
And meanwhile 980,000 people are legally deported.
The left is acheiving delay in 1/10000 cases. And exposing lawless judges in the process.
I disagree with Turley – there are some high profile judges that should be removed.
But not many.
Nor do we really want to open the flood gates to widespread removal of judges 0 the left will just weaponize that later.
But it is of great importance to call attention – to shine the spotlight on this.
” Judges are seeing so many civil rights violations and administration authorities ignoring the law that pointing it out is now becoming common and warranted. ”
And which of these has prevailed in an actual final judgement ?
So far ZERO.
The left in a TINY proportion of cases wins temporary delays with lawless orders from courts that lose on appeal.
But there are ZERO actual final decisions upholding ANY of these claims your left wing nut judges are making.
You keep tossing arround buzzwords as if they are applicable.
What civil rights are being violated ? There is no right to be in the US illegally.
While it is a crime – and many convicted or alleged criminals are being deported, nearly all deportations are NOT criminal.
Which means there is very little due process required – there are no rights of illegal immigrants being violated.
They are being sent home – not to h311.
“It may be unprofessional to you, but it’s neither illegal nor unprecedented. Judges over the years have made comments like those Turley is critical of.”
But never before have they been so egregiously wrong all of the time, and to universally overturned on appeal.
Again name ONE of these decisions that has survived appeal ?
“Before Trump they were rare.”
Correct, before Trump it was incredibly rare for the courts to have to deal with this massive lawfare to try to thwart the govenrment enforcing the law.
“Now they are almost a common occurrence due to the administration’s incompetence, lawlessness, and dishonesty.”
You keep tossing out accusations – without actual facts.
ICE has made 1M arrests in the past year, nearly all of those have resulted in deportation.
There have been TWO deaths by ICE of US citizens who tried to interfere in an arrest and escalated and FAFO.
There are about 400 deaths of citizens by the 1M LEOs in that country.
There is no means to “cook the books” that ICE officers are not far more competent that ordinary officers.
Of ICE detentions that are NOT for criminal obstuction, only 170 US citizens were detained – for an average of 45 minutes, and then released.
Again do you think that the rest of US Law Enforcement has only detained th wrong person 1000 times out of 7M arrests in the US last year ?
ICE is not incompetent – but YOU are.
What cases have you won ?
As franklin said – “better 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent is found guilty”. He did NOT say better 1M guilty go free than 170 innocent be detained for 45 minutes.
I will be happy to go after Law Enforcement for ACTUAL misconduct.
But I do not expect perfection from law enforcement. That is impossible.
Those who demand perfection – will get anarchy.
A few days ago a family of 4 was wiped out by an illegal immigrant with an illegally issued CDL – that family did not choose to put themselves in harms way as Pretti and Good did. They were driving do the highway minding their own business on an ordinary day when they were killed.
Yesterday a teacher was killed by another illegal immigrant who ran a red light.
These are just the ordinary deaths that are occuring all that time as a result of unvetted illegal mass immigration.
in addition we have hundreds of billions in Fraud nationwide – an enormous portion of which is committed by illegal immigrants.
An the dead citizens above and unlisted do not count the numerous murders committed by illegals – brutal murders like Laken Riley,
“In 2025, crime rates in major U.S. cities continued to decline, with homicides down 21% from 2024 and 44% from a peak in 2021. Overall, 11 out of 13 crime categories reported decreases, indicating a significant drop in violent and property crimes compared to previous years.”
What has changed ? 1m illegal immigrants have been deported.
BTW – every single nation in the world that has adopted this mass immigration nonsense has seen the massive spike in crime,
and numerous nations – like Denmark and Sweden now have net NEGATIVE immigration and rapidly dropping crime rates.
Again your on the wrong side of an 80/20 issue
Yet crimes by undocumented immigrants aren’t a large percentage of crime overall and therefore deporting them cannot cause a large drop in crime overall.
The majority of those found and deported are found because they are documented – they provided a case for asylum which requires them to tell the government where they live and where they work.
The majority of traffic deaths are from American citizens using their Constitutional right to kill people.
Geezzz Turley, your post sent shivers down my spine.
Well gee– If all these Federal judges have a problem with Trump, maybe Trump’s the problem. But strangely Turley thinks all the judges have a problem and Trump is just a harmless innocent. Er, ‘what field of law does Turley teach’..?
We abide by and live in a democracy. Can’t imagine you know what that is. So if the judges don’t like him, get rid of him? You got the smarts of a 15 year old Karen.
Gee – maybe these judges should oversee implementation of Constitutional law as set and keep their stupid political OPINIONS out of the courtroom and to themselves. Why would you take the opinion of these people seriously, their DEI front woman in the highest court is a moron that could not even define a woman.
They live in a God like bubble hovering over a court where they carry significant power and weight. They should not EVER allow their political views and biases to rule their decisions, that’s NOT law and order.
Shakespeare was right!
“maybe these judges should “? Maybe? Should?
“They should not EVER allow their political views and biases to rule their decisions, that’s NOT law and order.”
The characters in the Shakespeare play that commented about lawyers were the criminals. You are siding with fictional criminal characters.
Good article. Just two points.
(1) Has the politization gone too far to return to “normal?” Probably.
(2) If judges are allowed to make political commentary, then lifetime appointments must be abandoned. A seven year appointment will put them out of sync with elections, but they alerted to unhappy future possibilities. This may give pause to the likes of Boasberg and Chutkan, and even serve to rein in their mouths.
(3) Furthermore, if a judge is overturned three times in a two year period, they should be assigned a mentor who will review all decisions prior to publishing. Humiliation is the ultimate anathema to judge.
A very rare smart comment from you.
No. The comments from gdonaldallen were smart, but NOT rare.
Gd
Why should they be assigned a mentor? Their prior cases should be reviewed and they should be off to the scum bag ambulance chasing community, where they can be billionaires!
To punish their vaunting egos. To make them more observant of the law. To diminish activism from the bench.
GD
A mentor is not harsh enough, they are not accountable for anything they do. The defendants subjected to their wrathful conduct are harmed without any remedy, as judge they have zero accountability, no skin in the game.
Remember Alcee Hastings, caught red handed and a few years later he was back at the trough. These particular types of judges are political shills and are using the Bench to promote a political agenda and set policies. That’s not their job. Due to the social responsibility they have the punishments for transgressions should be quick and severe.
Three times out of 100 cases? Are you certain that those overturning the cases aren’t politically motivated to do so?
These new guidelines seem to be another stepping stone on the path to the politicized judiciaries of banana republics.
Banana republic here we come.
Come on Man! The Black Robe Illuminati cannot be constrained by stinkin laws, ethics, or elected Presidents. They are anointed Kings and Queens within their special little enclave called the District. A King or Queen does not care what anyone thinks, says, or does, as they ALONE are the LAW in matters before them. For that reason they are self-empowered to ensure all bow in their presence and that any command issued no matter how egregious is followed without hesitancy to include self-emollition! Thank goodness we have such brilliant and ALL-KNOWING omnipotent souls among us that wear the Black Robes of Justice for THEE but NOT FOR ME!
Can’t find any sense in your comment.
C’mon you people, hit that ‘Like’ button: you know that was a brilliant rebuttal I just posted.
Brilliant? Why thank you. You may now hit the like button. BTW, I didn’t post, I commented. Still can’t find any sense in your first comment, or the second.
Is the U.S. Judicial Conference the same as the Federal Judicial Center which recently released the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence which is supposed to be an introduction to scientific issues that frequently show up in courts. A 100 page section of this called the “reference Manual on Climate Change” was pure alarmism. Led by West Virginia, a coalition of 27 state AGs sent a letter asking that the entire CLimate Change section be withdrawn and, thank goodness, it has been.
West “Coal Country” Virginia, owned by Coal Oligarch’s sent a letter that said “We want to pollute as much as possible because it lines our pockets.”?
Shocking.
Obama bin Laden declared, “You didn’t build that.” NEITHER DID HE. That hasn’t stopped him and his goons from hijacking everything.
Oh geeezzz.. another one of those stupid comments. Grow up. Really, for your own sake.
I live rent-free in your head, and I’m still paying too much.
I thought judges were supposed to be impartial & decide cases based solely on the evidence presented! Now that we’re living under marxism-light, all of that has been thrown out!
Marxism-light? You mean the Trump administration with a majority of appointments to Federal positions coming from the Federalist Society?
This puts the lie to the idea that a defendant or plaintiff can expect fair and equal treatment regardless of what judge is handling his case. That is clearly untrue. The left always advocated for judges based on race, or sex, or ethnicity. It knows that judges are not fair and impartial. They bring biases to the bench, and force them into the law. In a perfect world, it would not matter what were the judge’s skin color, or ethnic background, or gender. This is clearly an imperfect world, and an imperfect judiciary, especially since Trump.
All judges bring bias and preconceptions to the bench. The good judges put those aside to issue rulings that they may personally oppose. The bad ones, well the Professor has highlighted them in his blog.
So much for the balanced scales of justice and blind justice. Seems that bias and hate will rule us into oblivion. What a sad demise of the legal profession.
demise of democracy and the USA.
He did not. He cast aspersions. There is no evidence the rulings are generally biased.
However some cases this does appear to be the case.
Brock Allen Turner was convicted by jury trial of three counts of felony sexual assault.
Prosecutors recommended that Turner be given a six-year prison sentence based on the purposefulness of the action, the effort to hide this activity, and Miller’s intoxicated state
County Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky sentenced Turner to six months in jail followed by three years of probation.
See, America loves to go easy on White rapists.
And to think that their decisions will be wholly based on their politics. So what does that mean then for their judgments especially vis a vis their dislike of a president i.e., Trump, will that judgment stand if it politically/personally tainted? How will their future judgments be applied if its an obvious, and so stated, attack on a sitting president, what kind of precedent will that have on future cases if they’re purely political instead based on law? I shudder to think.
It could go both ways.
But Reps. are a whiny sort and unwilling to use power for power’s sake. They’ll screw everything up as they always do.
“greatly erode the trust..” How true. More oversight via congress is needed. Does their potential actions to engage in commentary thus inciting widespread civil unrest. That will spark wholesale public antagonisms. I see a civil war coming.
Professor: this is frustrating. For those of us who are NOT judicial nerds, there is no explanation of what the provenance or even status of this rule is. Did it come from Justice Roberts? Is it something that is debated or voted on by the Court or ABA? Is it a proposal or the governing set of standards? Could you elaborate in another post? Sounds ominous but you need to give we, your citizen students and little tutorial here. Thanks,
Worthwhile question. Please people, respond only if you know what you’re talking about. This question is important.
At some point they’ll cross a line and then congress should then introduce strict rules to act like unbiased judges, those who don’t, impeach them and ban them.
Roberts failed us all, failed the USA and democracy.
yes, Roberts failed us all.