On Thursday, February 12, 2026, Fix the Court executive director Gabe Roth released a statement following the release of the Codes of Conduct Committee’s Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 118. The statement addresses the advisory opinion and its implications for judicial ethics and independence.

Roth stated that he suggested the Codes Committee write an advisory opinion on how judges might navigate their ethical responsibilities in light of rising attacks against them. He made this suggestion during a call last year with representatives from the Supreme Court, the Federal Judges Association, and other judges and bar leaders. The advisory opinion addresses how judges can defend the branch and speak out against attacks.

Roth expressed his satisfaction that the Committee followed through and confirmed that judges’ public statements about the need for judicial security and funding sufficient for the courts to carry out their responsibilities are acceptable under the Code of Conduct.

The Code provides space for the measured defense of judicial colleagues from illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks that risk undermining judicial independence or the rule of law, according to the opinion.

The statement notes that the advisory opinion is a rebuke of the Trump administration’s “war” on the judiciary, even though individuals are not called out by name. It comes one day after Attorney General Bondi denounced ‘liberal activist judges’ for taking part in ‘coordinated […] unlawful attack’ against President Trump’s ‘authority.’ The opinion suggests that any judge who seeks to counter this nonsense in a measured manner would be on an ethically sound footing.

The opinion references the actions of current and/or recently retired jurists, reiterating that the Committee has advised that judges should avoid sensationalism and comments that may result in confusion or misunderstanding of the judicial function or detract from the dignity of the office regarding the tone of extrajudicial writing.

Roth’s statement highlights that this guidance contradicts the text and the message presented by Fifth Circuit Judge Jim Ho last month in a Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy piece that attacked the FJA. Ho said some judges have an overinflated view of their intelligence and their abilities, and called others arrogant. Roth notes that this opinion won’t stop him, but it’s still important for a Committee with this purview and prestige to call out this behavior, even obliquely.

The statement concludes by noting that there are other tea leaves in the opinion, including some dressing down of judges’ anonymous comments to the press, and that these will be parsed in the coming days. Roth concludes that this is a step forward for judicial ethics and for independence.

 

 

Source: Fix the Court