On Thursday, April 2, 2026, the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed a complaint against Clinton County Common Pleas Court Judge John William Rudduck, ruling that his Facebook activity, which included endorsing his son’s campaign for a municipal court seat, was protected under the First Amendment. The court found that the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct’s prohibition on judges publicly endorsing candidates for other offices, Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3), was an unconstitutional restriction on political speech.
The Disciplinary Counsel had filed a complaint in June 2024, alleging that Rudduck violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.3, and 4.1(A)(3) by endorsing his son, Brett Rudduck, on his personal Facebook page. Brett was running for a seat on the Clinton County Municipal Court. The Board of Professional Conduct found that Rudduck had committed misconduct and recommended a public reprimand and the removal of the posts.
The Supreme Court’s majority opinion found that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) prohibits speech at the core of the First Amendment freedoms, specifically speech about the qualifications of candidates for public office. The court determined that the rule was a content-based restriction on political speech that could not withstand strict scrutiny because it was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.
The court also addressed the Disciplinary Counsel’s claim that Rudduck’s Facebook activity violated Jud.Cond.R. 1.2, which requires judges to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. Because the violation of Jud.Cond.R. 1.2 was based on the violation of Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3), the court found that it could not serve as a basis for discipline.
Furthermore, the court found that Rudduck’s Facebook activity did not violate Jud.Cond.R. 1.3, which prohibits a judge from abusing the prestige of their office to advance personal or economic interests. The court stated that Rudduck’s references to his judicial office in his Facebook posts did not demonstrate an abuse of prestige.
The court acknowledged the importance of maintaining judicial independence, integrity, and impartiality, but concluded that Jud.Cond.R. 4.1(A)(3) was too broad and restricted political speech beyond what was necessary to uphold those state interests.
The case, Disciplinary Counsel v. Rudduck, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1126, centered on Rudduck’s Facebook activity in 2023, during which he shared posts and commented on his son’s campaign. This included sharing posts Brett tagged him in, sharing posts by non-family individuals, and posting his own content.
Rudduck served as a judge in Clinton County for 39 years, with his final term ending on December 31, 2024.
A copy of the original filing can be found here.
