California Supreme Court to Decide if Judges Can Speak Out on Their Decisions

The amendment reads: “In connection with a judicial election or recall campaign, this canon does not prohibit a judge from making a public comment about a pending proceeding, provided (a) the comment would not reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of the proceeding, and (b) the comment is about the procedural, factual, or legal basis of a decision about which a judge has been criticized during the election or recall campaign.”

The rule extends to judges commenting on cases where they have no involvement, allowing them to defend embattled colleagues both individually and collectively. In fact, the Judicial Fairness Coalition, a group of judges, attorneys and law school deans proposing the amendment, said a third-party’s defense might be preferable in some situations.

They suggest adding the following commentary to the canon: “The provision allowing a judge to make a public comment about a pending decision that is the subject of criticism during an election campaign applies to all judicial elections, including recall elections. Depending on the circumstances, the judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the decision.”

Bowers called the rule change “a little something” to help judges defend themselves, though he said he doesn’t think it will make much difference.

“We’re talking about changing some canons to allow some folks to talk about things to people who won’t listen,” he said.

Some judges have expressed concern about the amendment’s breadth. Retired Judge Julie Conger, an expert in judicial ethics, said she agreed with the amendment in principle, but found it too problematic to allow judges to comment publicly on their colleagues’ decisions.

Conger, who did not attend the conference due to a prior obligation, was not able to comment Sunday afternoon, but referred Courthouse News to a letter she wrote to the Supreme Court’s judicial ethics advisory committee.

“This amendment would open the door to judges commenting on other judges’ decisions without full knowledge of the facts, circumstances and details underlying the controversial decision made in the case,” she wrote.

Conger added that the canon currently provides judges with a shield against media requests for comment on controversial cases.

“Removing this shield would put a judge privately dissenting from another judge’s controversial ruling in the position of having to duck the question, dissemble, or openly criticize a colleague; even a ‘no comment’ can be interpreted negatively,” she wrote.

“I understand Judge Conger’s position is that’s a bridge too far,” Bowers said. "When people want to ask me about certain opinions that happened in certain parts of the country, I always say, ‘I don’t know all the facts in that case. Not my case. Not my record. I can’t comment as a judge.’ ”

Bowers said he’s often asked if he would have sentenced Turner differently.

“If it’s a case of popular concern, everyone wants to know what would you have done,” he said. "I always get, ‘Would you have done something different?’ I’m a little concerned about this. We work within the rules we have.”

Speaking off the record, other judges said they were worried being pulled into fights on social media over their public comments, further contributing to an already caustic rhetorical climate. One judge called it an “ugly slippery slope,” adding, “to go down that road is really scary.”

While many judges said colleagues were “guaranteed to say something stupid,” some were adamant that they should nonetheless have the right to do so and argued that judges can always opt to ignore a reporter’s calls if they want to avoid controversy.

“I think it’s an interesting debate,” Rosing said. “If this amendment passes, judges should be prepared when approached by the press to say ‘no comment’ and I think that’s going to happen.”

But what’s most important, she added, is that the amendment allows judges to band together to support their colleagues. “I just love the idea of that,” she said.

The Alliance board later met privately to vote on whether to back the proposed amendment as written or adopt a stance in line with Conger’s. After closed door debate, the board emerged with a vote in favor of the current proposal.

“Any time judges are given an opportunity to have a First Amendment right, that should be embraced,” said Judge Maryanne Gilliard of Sacramento, an Alliance director. “Judges have been historically unable to make comments on virtually anything. This amendment gives judges some of the rights all Americans take for granted.”

She said the Alliance will be submitting a formal public comment. The comment period closes on Dec. 2.

Follow @MariaDinzeo

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit