On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, Fox News reported that newly published ethics guidelines allowing federal judges to speak out on certain issues are facing criticism from legal experts and conservatives. These critics argue that the guidance, issued by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the policy-making body for the federal courts, is hypocritical and has been unfairly applied.
The ethics guidance, released this month, has drawn the ire of figures like Article III Project founder Mike Davis, who told Fox News Digital that Chief Justice John Roberts is “giving judicial saboteurs new tools” for the courts to overstep. Davis criticized the guidance as “sabotaging the exercise of core Article II powers of the duly-elected president,” arguing it represents another instance of the federal judiciary overstepping its authority. He added that judges who enter the political arena should expect political pushback.
The new advisory opinion states that judges may engage in a “measured defense” of the judiciary, including defending against “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks” that risk “undermining judicial independence or the rule of law,” regardless of whether such comments rise to the level of persecution. Chief Justice Roberts’ 2024 year-end report identified four areas of illegitimate activity, including activities that threaten judges or the rule of law, such as violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy court orders.
The guidance comes as President Trump has criticized judges who have paused or blocked his policy priorities. It also follows a sharp increase in threats against federal judges in 2025, including online harassment, threats of physical violence, and doxxing incidents targeting judges and their families.
Critics argue that the guidance attempts to give judges a forum to dispel criticism, but also invites backlash from Trump allies and conservative commentators who believe it is being unfairly applied to protect certain members of the judiciary.
Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, noted the timing of the guidance, suggesting it is a response to conservative criticism of liberal judges. He stated that such guidance was not seen as necessary during the previous four years when conservative judges faced routine death threats.
The guidance also stresses that judges should avoid sensationalism and commentary that may result in confusion or misunderstanding of the judicial function or detract from the dignity of the office. The news comes as several judges have been criticized for overstepping their duties on the bench and for making overtly political comments.
Last year, the Supreme Court condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for failing to respect the commander-in-chief in repeated opinions that assailed Trump as a bully and as being laser-focused on “retribution.” Young has also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community.”
Source: Fox News
