On Thursday, February 27, 2025, the Article III Project (A3P), a conservative judicial watchdog, filed a complaint against Judge M. Casey Rodgers of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The complaint alleges misconduct related to comments made by Judge Rodgers during a First Case Management Conference concerning the litigation of Depo-Provera, an injectable form of birth control.

The A3P claims that Judge Rodgers suggested gender should be a significant factor in choosing leadership counsel for the multi-district litigation. Specifically, the judge reportedly stated that “females need to be adequately represented in your leadership,” which, according to the A3P, reflects a discriminatory preference for female attorneys in professional roles.

The complaint argues that by advocating for gender considerations in the selection process, Judge Rodgers violated principles of impartiality and engaged in judicial misconduct. Mike Davis, founder and president of A3P, emphasized that the judge’s remarks imply that gender should take precedence over qualifications, experience, or merit when appointing MDL leadership. He stated, “It should go without saying that Judge Rodgers’ statement that ‘that doesn’t mean I’m looking for every single leadership to be a female’ does not somehow justify the express preference for women.”

The case at hand involves thousands of individual lawsuits, and Judge Rodgers was discussing the composition of the leadership committee that would represent the plaintiffs during pre-trial proceedings. The A3P insists that all attorneys, regardless of gender, should receive equal treatment in these legal processes.

This complaint is not an isolated incident for A3P, which has previously raised concerns regarding other judges. In December 2024, the organization compelled Senior Judge Michael Ponsor of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to issue an apology for an op-ed he wrote in the New York Times. In that piece, Judge Ponsor criticized U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for flying flags that some leftist commentators deemed extreme.

The controversy surrounding Judge Alito involved flags flown at his residences, including an American flag and a banner with historical significance. The New York Times reported extensively on these flags in a manner that was perceived as an attempt to undermine Alito’s patriotism. Judge Ponsor described flying those flags as analogous to displaying a “Stop the steal” bumper sticker, arguing it was inappropriate for a judge to engage in such partisan displays.

Following the fallout from his op-ed, Judge Ponsor was found to have violated judicial conduct rules, which prompted his public apology. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Chief Judge Albert Diaz concluded that the op-ed constituted misconduct, undermining public confidence in the judicial system. The Wall Street Journal reported that Ponsor’s actions detracted from the dignity of a judge’s office and harmed the perceived integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

As the A3P continues to monitor judicial behavior, the organization’s recent complaint against Judge Rodgers highlights ongoing debates regarding gender representation in the legal profession and the role of judges in enforcing or challenging these norms. The outcome of this complaint may have implications for how gender considerations are viewed in legal proceedings moving forward.