Ohio Supreme Court Rules Judges May Endorse Political Candidates, Citing Free Speech

On Monday, April 13, 2026, Cleveland.com reported that the Ohio Supreme Court overturned a decades-long ban on judges making political endorsements, citing free speech grounds.

The 5-1 ruling has sparked praise from some officials, including Attorney General Dave Yost, who called the decision “overdue”. However, the ruling has also faced sharp opposition from jurists across party lines, including Republican Justice Pat Fischer, who warned of its potentially “immobilizing effect on the judicial system in Ohio”.

With this decision, Ohio becomes the only state to explicitly allow judges to make partisan political endorsements, according to an analysis by The Plain Dealer and Cleveland.com. Federal judges are not permitted to make endorsements under the U.S. Supreme Court’s code of conduct.

The case arose from the disciplinary proceedings against now-retired Clinton County Common Pleas Judge John “Tim” Ruddick, who used his personal Facebook page to support his son Brett’s 2023 campaign for Clinton County Municipal Court judge. A state disciplinary panel determined that Tim Ruddick’s social media activity violated the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct’s ban on judges endorsing or opposing political candidates. The panel recommended a public reprimand for Ruddick and the removal of the posts.

Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, writing for the majority, asserted that the state’s ban violated Ruddick’s right to free speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. She argued that the ban “burdens core political speech” more broadly than necessary to protect judicial independence or impartiality. Kennedy stated that judges do not relinquish their First Amendment rights upon assuming office.

Kennedy acknowledged the potential for impartiality concerns when judges endorse candidates, particularly in cases involving an opponent of their favored candidate. However, she noted that other parts of the state judicial code require judges to recuse or disqualify themselves in such situations.

Fischer, in his dissent, criticized the majority for addressing a federal constitutional issue that had not been previously raised, thereby overturning prior decisions by federal appeals courts that upheld other states’ restrictions on judicial endorsements. He cautioned that allowing judges to endorse candidates, especially prosecutors, sheriffs, or other frequent litigants, could lead to widespread recusals, undermine public confidence in judicial neutrality, and call other judicial ethics rules into question.

Republican Justices Pat DeWine, Joe Deters, Dan Hawkins, and Megan Shanahan joined Kennedy in the ruling. Justice Jennifer Brunner, the lone Democrat on the state’s high court and a candidate for reelection this year, did not participate in the decision. Brunner cited her involvement as a defendant in a pending federal lawsuit against a 2021 state law requiring the party affiliations of Ohio Supreme Court and state appellate court candidates to appear on ballots.

The ban on judges endorsing political candidates in Ohio dates back to at least 1954, when the Ohio Supreme Court adopted the prohibition as part of the American Bar Association’s “Canons of Judicial Ethics”. Until 2010, candidates for judge were not even allowed to list their political party affiliation in campaign materials, when the Ohio Supreme Court eliminated the ban.