Judges don’t have to stay silent anymore when attacks cross the line, panel says

WASHINGTON — A U.S. judicial ethics committee said federal judges are allowed to defend themselves and their colleagues against “illegitimate” criticism that risks undermining judicial independence or the rule of law, according to a new ethics opinion described by Reuters.

The guidance comes amid rising political pressure on courts, including public attacks on judges over rulings that block or slow high-profile government actions. Reuters reported the opinion points to disinformation, intimidation and threats as real dangers to the judiciary’s ability to function — and it says judges may advocate for court security, funding and the basic principle of an independent judiciary.

That’s a shift in tone from the old expectation that judges should stay almost completely silent in the face of controversy. The committee’s message is not “judges should start debating politics,” but rather “judges don’t have to take institutional damage in silence,” especially when criticism crosses into bad-faith narratives that could erode public trust or spark threats.

The opinion also draws boundaries. Reuters reported the panel emphasized caution to preserve impartiality, particularly around hot-button topics that are not strictly legal issues. In practice, that means judges can explain the role of the courts, defend colleagues from smear campaigns, and call out threats — but they still can’t look like they’re taking sides in partisan fights.

Why this is getting reactions: Americans are watching the courts become a primary battleground for national policy. When that happens, the people who wear robes become targets — and the judiciary has to balance two competing needs: remaining above politics while also protecting the legitimacy and safety of the institution. This opinion is essentially the system saying, “You can defend the building without campaigning inside it.”