The 3rd Circuit Judicial Council cleared a federal judge of any ethics violations after he expressed concerns about potential violence stemming from negative comments made by influential figures, including former President Donald Trump.

Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, based in Washington, D.C., faced scrutiny for remarks he made during a CNN interview on March 28, 2024. His comments came in response to Trump’s social media attacks against New York Judge Juan Merchan, who was overseeing a case involving allegations that Trump falsified business records to conceal a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

In a ruling dated January 31, 2025, which was released last week, Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated that Walton did not violate any ethical standards. The council found that Walton did not address the merits of any pending cases nor engage in behavior that would be prejudicial to the justice system. Although Walton was not explicitly named in the opinion, a representative confirmed to Law360 and Reuters that he was indeed the judge in question.

The controversy began when Trump criticized Judge Merchan on his social media platform, Truth Social, labeling him a “radical left judge” and suggesting he harbored animosity against Trump. These remarks were made shortly before Walton’s interview, where he urged caution from those in positions of authority regarding their public statements. He highlighted the potential consequences of such comments, stating, “I think it’s very important that people in positions of authority be very circumspect in reference to the things that they say, so that they’re not causing others to act on what they say and maybe cause injury or death to someone as a result of that.”

Walton further elaborated on the broader implications of public statements made by influential individuals, suggesting that they could resonate with the public in unforeseen ways. He noted that while he could not speak to the intentions behind Trump’s comments, it was reasonable to expect that individuals in positions of significance understand the potential impact of their words.

The 3rd Circuit’s opinion emphasized that Walton’s statements were not partisan political commentary but rather reflections on the challenges faced by judges, including threats to their safety and the safety of their families. Chagares pointed out that Walton spoke from his experiences with threats and the tragic reality faced by colleagues whose family members had been harmed.

The ruling also reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the independence of the judiciary, underlining that judicial officers must uphold the rule of law and ensure that laws are applied fairly to all parties appearing before them.

Chagares did not disclose the identities of those who filed the ethics complaints against Walton; however, it has been reported that conservative activist Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, acknowledged filing one of the complaints.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.