On Thursday, February 12, 2026, the Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct published a new advisory opinion, No. 118, addressing ethics considerations for federal judges engaging in public speech and civic activities. The opinion provides guidance on navigating the ethical boundaries inherent in such engagement, acknowledging the significance of the judiciary’s role in public discourse.
The advisory opinion emphasizes that while judges are rightly concerned about ethical boundaries when speaking publicly, each situation requires careful consideration and sound judgment. The Committee refers to Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct, which broadly permits judges to engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits, civic, charitable, educational, religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities. Judges are also permitted to speak, write, lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects.
The Commentary to Canon 4 acknowledges a judge’s unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice. It encourages both law-related and non-law-related extrajudicial activities, provided they do not compromise impartiality and time permits.
However, the Committee clarifies that not every activity involving the law or legal system is permissible. Advisory Opinions No. 50 and No. 93 offer guidance on ethically acceptable civic engagement and judicial speech. To qualify as acceptable, law-related activities must aim to improve the law or the legal system, rather than merely using them to achieve social, political, or civic objectives. Permissible activities are limited to matters where a judge’s judicial experience provides unique qualifications and serve the interests of those who use the legal system or enhance the legal system’s function.
The Committee also addresses the circumstances under which a judge may consult with executive or legislative bodies. According to Advisory Opinion No. 50, a judge may consult with an executive or legislative body or official to the extent that it would generally be perceived that a judge’s judicial experience provides expertise in the area, particularly concerning the administration of justice, such as matters relating to court personnel, budget, equipment, housing, and procedures.
The Code and related advisory opinions affirm that judges may discuss the history and role of federal courts, their operation, the importance of jury service, and suggestions to improve the legal system. This includes public statements about judicial security and adequate court funding. Judges are also permitted to speak or write about judicial independence and advocate for the rule of law.
The Commentary to Canon 4 allows judges to express opposition to the persecution of lawyers and judges if they have ascertained that the persecution results from conflicts between professional responsibilities and government policies. The Committee believes the Code and its previous advisory opinions leave room for the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate criticisms that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law.
The guidance also outlines prudent limits for judges’ civic engagement and extrajudicial activities. Canon 4 cautions against activities that detract from the dignity of the judge’s office, interfere with official duties, reflect adversely on impartiality, or lead to frequent disqualification. Canon 2A advises judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality, while Canon 3A(6) advises judges to avoid public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court. Canon 5 prohibits political activity, such as making speeches for political organizations or candidates, endorsing or opposing candidates, or making political contributions.
The Committee emphasizes the importance of tone, context, and form in a judge’s civic engagement and judicial speech. Judges should avoid sensationalism and comments that may cause confusion or detract from the dignity of the office. Reasoned discourse and respectful language are preferred over demeaning rhetoric or acerbic criticism.
Advisory Opinion No. 93 cautions that the need to protect impartiality may preclude a judge’s participation in law-related activities or organizations concerning highly controversial subjects. Judges should avoid subjects that could raise doubts about impartiality in cases that may come before them and avoid speaking at events sponsored by groups clearly associated with one side of a controversial issue.
