Legal experts and conservatives are taking aim at newly published ethics guidelines that allow federal judges to speak out on certain issues, arguing the guidance issued by the court’s policy-making body is hypocritical and has been unfairly applied.
At issue is new ethics guidance published this month by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the national body led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in his official capacity and tasked with setting policy for the federal courts.
It is unclear whether Roberts himself was directly involved in the guidance, but critics assailed it all the same. Article III Project founder Mike Davis told Fox News Digital that Roberts is “giving judicial saboteurs new tools” for the courts to overstep.
In a statement, he railed against the ethics guidance as “sabotaging the exercise of core Article II powers of the duly-elected president,” and another example in which he argued the federal judiciary has overstepped its powers.
JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA
“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 said.
In a departure from earlier guidance, 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,” and doing so “regardless of whether these comments rise to the level of persecution,” according to a copy of the opinion reviewed by Fox News Digital.
It goes on to list four areas of illegitimate activity identified by Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 year-end report, including activities that “either threaten the judges themselves” or threaten the rule of law: “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 said.
The new guidance comes as Trump has assailed so-called “rogue” or “activist” judges who have paused or blocked some of his biggest policy priorities from taking effect during his second term as president.
It also comes as threats against federal judges saw a sharp uptick in 2025 compared to the previous 12-month period, according to federal data, including increases in online harassment, threats of physical violence and “doxxing” incidents targeting judges and their families.
The guidance in question seemingly attempts to give judges a forum to dispel some of the criticism against them.
EX-JUDGES BLAST TOP TRUMP DOJ OFFICIAL FOR DECLARING ‘WAR’ ON COURTS
But it also invited fresh backlash from Trump allies, conservative commentators and court watchers, who argued the guidance is being unfairly applied to protect certain members of the judiciary.
“The first thing to note” about the new guidance is its timing, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, 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.”
The timing, he added, “is a bit unfortunate, because it gives a sense that only [certain] criticisms warrant a response.”
FEDERAL JUDGE LAUNCHES SCATHING BROADSIDE OF TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO DEPORT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS
The opinion comes as dozens of former judges have voiced concern over the Trump administration’s rhetoric towards the federal court judges, describing them in a series of interviews with Fox News Digital as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to “pouring oil” on an already fast-burning fire.
The new guidance also stressed 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 formally for overstepping their duties on the bench, and for otherwise making overtly political comments.
The Supreme Court last year 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.”
He has also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and asked in one order, “Have we no shame?”
