On Monday, December 23, 2024, Michael C. Dorf, Professor of Law at Cornell University Law School, published an opinion piece in Verdict addressing the reprimand issued to Senior Federal District Judge Michael A. Ponsor by Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The reprimand stemmed from Judge Ponsor’s criticism of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a guest essay for The New York Times.
In his piece, Dorf highlighted that Judge Ponsor’s essay took issue with Justice Alito flying an upside-down U.S. flag at his residence in Virginia and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his vacation home. According to Dorf, these flags were interpreted as expressions supporting the unfounded claims that former President Donald Trump was the legitimate winner of the 2020 presidential election. Dorf noted that Ponsor’s critique was relatively mild compared to the broader criticism directed at Justice Alito for his apparent partisan bias.
Dorf emphasized that Ponsor did not accuse Justice Alito of violating any laws or ethical codes applicable to Supreme Court justices. Instead, Ponsor suggested that Alito should have recognized that displaying such flags could be perceived as aligning with partisan issues relevant to cases before the court. Dorf pointed out that Ponsor’s remarks were a legitimate assertion regarding the propriety of a Supreme Court justice’s public behavior.
The reprimand from Judge Diaz did not acknowledge the validity of Ponsor’s concerns. Instead, Judge Diaz argued that Ponsor’s essay undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and independence. Dorf expressed skepticism about this interpretation, suggesting that the erosion of public trust was more closely related to Justice Alito’s actions than to Ponsor’s critique.
Dorf further elaborated on the implications of Judge Diaz’s reprimand, suggesting it sent a troubling message about judicial accountability and the ability of judges to express concerns about their colleagues. He pointed out that Ponsor’s criticism was based on observable facts, including Justice Alito’s choice to display flags associated with the “stop the steal” movement, which was rooted in the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
Dorf acknowledged potential counterarguments regarding the characterization of Justice Alito’s actions, particularly concerning the agency of Justice Alito’s spouse. However, he maintained that as a public figure, Justice Alito bore responsibility for the implications of his household’s choices. He noted that Judge Diaz’s reprimand did not refute Ponsor’s claims but rather sought to silence a legitimate discussion regarding judicial ethics.
In his analysis, Dorf likened the reprimand to a broader trend of discouraging open dialogue about the conduct of judicial figures. He argued that such a trend could have chilling effects on the willingness of judges to engage in discourse on ethical concerns. Ponsor’s subsequent apology, which Dorf compared to coerced confessions seen in authoritarian regimes, further underscored the troubling nature of the reprimand.
Dorf concluded his opinion by contrasting the consequences faced by Judge Ponsor with the lack of accountability for Justice Alito and others involved in the events surrounding the January 6 insurrection. He pointed out that while Ponsor was reprimanded for his comments, Justice Alito had not faced any repercussions for his actions, which many viewed as compromising judicial impartiality.
Source: Verdict
