Opinion 23-81

June 15, 2023

Digest: A judge may not host an event at their home for a federal legislator to discuss national issues with interested community leaders, colleagues, friends, and neighbors. 

Rules:   22 NYCRR 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.5(A)(1); 100.5(A)(1)(g), (i); Opinions 19-129; 13-22; 07-211; 06-71; 05-101; 99-112; 88-136; 88-32.

Opinion:

          A full-time judge asks if they and their spouse may host an event at their home for a federal legislator to discuss “national issues with interested community leaders, colleagues, friends, and neighbors” in attendance.  The judge states that the event would be “non-partisan” and “non-political,” and that fund-raising would not be permitted.  The judge also asks about identifying other individuals and/or not-for-profit organizations as “sponsors or co-hosts” of the event.

          A judge must always avoid even the appearance of impropriety (see 22 NYCRR 100.2) and must always act to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[A]).  A judge must not convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]).  A sitting judge is must not “directly or indirectly engage in any political activity,” unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]).  For example, a judge who is not within their window period for election or re-election to judicial office must not attend politically sponsored events, even for a non-political purpose (see 22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1][g], [i]).

          Thus, we have advised that a judge who is not in their window period may not attend or speak at events sponsored by a political organization, even on non-political topics (see e.g. Opinions 19-129 [judge may not participate in an event sponsored by a local political party in which children would meet with local judges to learn about the court system]; 13-22 [judge may not participate in a politically sponsored sporting event in which one local political party’s team will compete against another local political party’s team, where the purpose of the event is to improve both parties’ public image]; 07-211 [judge may not attend a politically sponsored holiday party]; 06-71 [judge may not attend a political club’s meeting to administer the oath of office to its president-elect]; 88-136 [judge may not speak at a political club about the function of the family court]; 88-32 [judge may not speak at a political club about the legal system]).

          Moreover, we previously addressed similar circumstances where a judge asked if it would be permissible for the judge and their spouse to host “an informal ‘get-together’” for a state assemblyperson and the judge’s neighbors at the judge’s home (Opinion 99-112).  We concluded that this was essentially a meeting between the assemblyperson and their constituents, and impermissible political activity, as it would be perceived as “a political gathering, amounting to partisan political activity which could readily be perceived as an endorsement” (id.; cf. Opinion 05-101 [emphasizing the need to avoid “a public perception of entanglement of the judiciary itself in the political process”]). 

We see no need for a different result here merely because the present inquiry involves a federal legislator.  In our view, by hosting or co-hosting such an event at the judge’s home, the judge would unavoidably create the impression that the judge is engaging in impermissible political activity.   Accordingly, we conclude that the inquiring judge may not host or co-host an event at their home for a federal legislator to discuss national issues with interested community leaders, colleagues, friends, and neighbors.  In view of this conclusion, we need not address any issues concerning the identity of possible co-sponsors.