On Tuesday, September 16, 2025, the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) recommended that Judge Diana Tennis of the Ninth Circuit be publicly reprimanded for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. The recommendation stems from Judge Tennis’s numerous contributions to political organizations and candidates, which the JQC found to be in violation of Canons 1, 2A, and 7A(1)(e) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The case is entitled “In the Matter of Judge Diana Tennis,” with case numbers 2024-714 and 2024-767.

According to the JQC’s findings, Judge Tennis made over 900 contributions to political entities since 2016, totaling approximately $29,154.76. These contributions were made to various Democratic-aligned organizations and candidates, including the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, ACTBLUE, Jon Ossoff for Congress, Beto for Texas, National Democratic Training Committee PAC, Emily’s List, End Citizens United, MoveOn.Org Political Action, Bill Nelson for US Senate, Doug Jones for Senate Committee, Randy Bryce for Congress, Stephanie Murphy For Congress, Warnock for Georgia, Let America Vote PAC, The Democratic Coalition, Biden for President, and Ditch Fund.

Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge must uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary. Canon 2 requires judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities. Canon 7A(1)(e) prohibits judges or candidates for judicial office from soliciting funds for, paying assessments to, or making contributions to a political organization or candidate, or purchasing tickets for political party dinners or other functions. The code defines a “political organization” as a group whose principal purpose is to further the election or appointment of candidates to political office.

Judge Tennis admitted to the conduct described in the Notice of Formal Charges, acknowledging that her actions violated the specified Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. She agreed that the charges are supported by clear and convincing evidence and that she should receive the recommended discipline.

In mitigation, the JQC noted Judge Tennis’s admission of misconduct and her cooperation with the Commission throughout the inquiry. She expressed regret that her conduct may have eroded public perception of the integrity of the judiciary and judicial elections and stated her intention to take responsibility for her actions by accepting the sanction. The Commission also acknowledged Judge Tennis’s decade of service on the bench, including her current role as an administrative judge in the Ninth Circuit, and the fact that she had not previously been disciplined as a lawyer since being admitted to The Florida Bar in 1992.

The JQC addressed Judge Tennis’s explanation that she believed the prohibition applied only to state candidates and races, not federal ones, clarifying that no such exception exists in Canon 7A(1)(e). The Commission also noted her explanation that some contributions were recurring and small enough to go unnoticed until reviewed collectively, but emphasized that this did not absolve her of her responsibility to adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The JQC cited a similar case involving a New York state judge, Juan Merchan, who made small contributions to Joseph Biden’s presidential campaign and other political organizations in 2020. This case, which generated media coverage and a letter of caution from the New York Commission on Judicial Conduct, highlights the importance of Canon 7A(1)(e) in maintaining impartiality and public confidence in the judiciary.

The Commission stated that the recommended public reprimand would deter similar behavior by Judge Tennis and remind the judiciary of the strict requirements regarding political contributions. While the identity of the recipient of the contribution does not factor into the review, the panel considers the dollar amount, the number of contributions, and the remoteness of the breach. The Commission emphasized that Judge Tennis was the most prolific offender in terms of both total dollars and the number of contributions. The Commission also noted that future violations after this disposition might be considered.

The Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission, through Vice Chair Hon. Gary Flower, recommends that a public reprimand of Judge Tennis will serve the interests of justice, the public welfare, and sound judicial administration.

A copy of the original filing can be found here.