On Thursday, January 9, 2025, Zack Smith, a senior legal fellow in the Heritage Foundation’s Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, published an opinion piece titled “When judges act like politicians, they deserve to be criticized” on the Washington Examiner. In his article, Smith addresses the concerning behavior of judges who, he argues, compromise their impartiality by acting in ways reminiscent of politicians.
Smith highlights two notable incidents involving judges who allegedly echoed political criticisms against Supreme Court justices. He focuses on Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito, suggesting their treatment by fellow jurists raises critical questions about judicial independence.
The first case involves former Texas Court of Appeals Justice Sarah Beth Landau. While still serving as an active judge, Landau shared an article from the New Republic on social media that implied Thomas had engaged in unethical conduct. Smith criticizes Landau’s comments, which he claims suggested that Thomas’s actions were detrimental to the federal judiciary’s integrity and that he was not adhering to ethical standards.
Smith points out that the article linked by Landau was based on a ProPublica report, which he describes as having a contentious history regarding its reporting on Thomas and other conservative justices. He cites attorney Mark Paoletta and others who argue that such reports often lack substantial evidence and rely on insinuations of wrongdoing.
Furthermore, Smith disputes Landau’s insinuation that Supreme Court justices are not bound by a code of ethics. He clarifies that justices have historically followed the same ethical guidelines as other federal judges. In November 2023, the justices adopted their own ethics code, reaffirming their commitment to ethical conduct.
Smith also notes Landau’s response to critical comments, where she accused Thomas of unethical behavior and suggested the judiciary might be compromised. He argues that her statements were misleading and could harm public trust in the judiciary.
The second incident involves District Judge Michael Ponsor, who faced criticism for an op-ed in the New York Times that criticized Justice Alito. Following the publication, an ethics complaint was filed against Ponsor. Chief Judge Albert Diaz reviewed the complaint and concluded that Ponsor’s statements had indeed violated the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, potentially undermining public confidence in the judiciary and appearing partisan.
Smith contrasts Ponsor’s actions with those of Landau, noting that Ponsor apologized for his remarks after facing backlash, while Landau deleted her post but continued to defend her position.
In his piece, Smith emphasizes that judges should primarily communicate through their judicial opinions. While he acknowledges that judges can comment on legal matters outside their opinions, he insists they must adhere to ethical standards, even on social media.
Smith concludes that while justices like Thomas and Alito may expect political attacks, they should not face similar treatment from their fellow judges. He argues that the American public deserves higher standards from the judiciary, which is expected to maintain impartiality and integrity.
Source: Washington Examiner
