Conservative Critics Condemn New Ethics Guidelines for Federal Judges

Federal Judges Granted New Latitude to Defend Courts Against ‘Illegitimate Criticism’

Legal experts and conservatives are voicing strong opposition to newly released ethics guidelines that permit federal judges to speak out on certain issues. Critics argue the guidance, published this month by the U.S. Judicial Conference, represents a hypocritical stance and has been inconsistently applied.

The Judicial Conference, the national policy-making body for federal courts headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, issued an advisory opinion that represents a significant shift from previous guidance. While Roberts’ direct involvement in drafting the guidance remains unclear, it has nonetheless drawn sharp criticism.

Mike Davis, founder of the Article III Project, told Fox News Digital that Roberts is “giving judicial saboteurs new tools” that could enable courts to exceed their authority.

The new guidelines specifically allow judges to engage in a “measured defense” of the judiciary, particularly when facing “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks” that might undermine judicial independence or the rule of law. The opinion identifies four areas of illegitimate activity previously outlined by Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 year-end report: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy court orders.

“It does not follow, however, that every activity that involves the law or the legal system is considered permissible activity,” the report noted.

The timing of this guidance is particularly noteworthy, as it comes during a period when President Trump has repeatedly criticized what he describes as “rogue” or “activist” judges who have blocked or delayed several of his administration’s key policy initiatives.

Simultaneously, federal data indicates a sharp increase in threats against federal judges in 2025 compared to the previous year, including rising incidents of online harassment, physical violence threats, and “doxxing” targeting judges and their families.

The guidance appears designed to provide judges a framework to address criticism, but has sparked fresh controversy from Trump allies, conservative commentators, and judicial observers who believe it unfairly shields certain members of the judiciary.

Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, highlighted concerns about the timing of the new guidance in an interview. “It is clearly a response to conservative criticism of liberal judges,” Blackman said. “We didn’t see much of this in the last four years, [when] there were routine death threats against conservative judges.”

He added that the timing “is a bit unfortunate, because it gives a sense that only [certain] criticisms warrant a response.”

Davis was more pointed in his criticism, describing the ethics guidance as “sabotaging the exercise of core Article II powers of the duly-elected president” and another instance where the federal judiciary has overstepped its bounds.

“Friendly reminder: when federal judges take off their judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches,” Davis stated.

The opinion emerges against a backdrop of dozens of former judges expressing concern over the Trump administration’s rhetoric toward federal court judges, characterizing the administration’s language as unnecessarily inflammatory.

The guidance also emphasizes 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.”

This update comes amid criticism of several judges for allegedly overstepping their judicial duties or making overtly political statements. Last year, the Supreme Court condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for failing to show proper respect for the commander-in-chief in opinions that characterized Trump as focused on “retribution” and as a bully.

Young had also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and rhetorically asked in one court order, “Have we no shame?”

The controversy highlights growing tensions between the judiciary and executive branch as courts continue to play a significant role in determining the fate of key administration policies.