Opinion 24-58
May 9, 2024
Digest: (1) A judge may not sign
petitions that would publicly associate the judge with non-legal matters of
substantial public and political controversy.
(2) A judge may make financial contributions to not-for-profit organizations
whose activities and missions appear to be essentially charitable in nature,
but may not donate to political organizations.
Rules: 22 NYCRR 100.0(M); 100.2; 100.2(A); 100.2(C); 100.5(A)(1); Opinions 23-114; 23-06; 17-70; 17-38; 14-117.
Opinion:
The inquiring judge asks if he/she may sign petitions circulated by the Jewish National Fund, Hadassah, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (“AIPAC”), or other not-for-profit organizations concerning developments in the Middle East “[s]ince October 7th.” These petitions apparently call for elected officials and/or the public to take a range of actions, all in the context of a time of war in the Middle East.[1] For example, some urge the President of the United States “to bring the hostages home” while others “support the women of Israel who were brutalized on 10/7.” The judge also asks if he/she may donate money to the organizations that are circulating such petitions.
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 lend the prestige of judicial office to advance private interests (see 22 NYCRR 100.2[C]) and may not “directly or indirectly” engage in political activity unless an exception applies (22 NYCRR 100.5[A][1]). A political organization is defined as a “political party, political club or other group, the principal purpose of which is to further the election or appointment of candidates to political office” (22 NYCRR 100.0[M]).
In Opinion 17-38 we advised judges seeking to sign petitions addressed to the federal government in their capacity as private citizens that “[t]here may potentially be instances where a judge would be permitted to sign a petition.” The petitions most likely to be permissible are those “directly related to a specific personal interest of the judge” or “relating to improvement of the law, the legal system or the administration of justice” (id.). We cautioned, however, that “a judge is not free to sign all conceivable petitions,” even in these categories. For example, a judge may not sign if a petition is sponsored by a political organization or is framed as garnering support for a specific politician (id.).
We have also advised that judges and quasi-judicial officials “must not publicly associate [themselves] with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether by preaching or writing about them, or otherwise” (Opinion 17-70).
On the facts presented, we conclude that the judge may not sign any of the described petitions, as they would publicly associate the judge with non-legal matters of substantial public and political controversy.
Regarding donations, we have previously advised that judges may donate to organizations whose “activities and missions appear to be essentially charitable in nature,” but not to political organizations (Opinion 14-117). As explained in Opinion 23-114 (citations omitted):
In general, a judge may make donations to a wide range of non-political not-for-profit civic and charitable organizations. The fact that the organization may be involved in some activities that the judge may not be permitted to engage in, does not necessarily preclude the judge from making a charitable donation. However, a judge must not contribute to a political organization or make other political contributions. For example, we have advised that a judge may contribute to the non-political charitable and/or educational entities of Planned Parenthood, but not to its political action committee or other political arm.
Accordingly, the judge may only donate to these organizations provided they are not “political organizations” within the meaning of the Rules (see 22 NYCRR 100.0[M] [defining “political organization”]; Opinions 23-06 [applying the definition]; 17-70 [concluding that AIPAC is not a “political organization” under the rules]).
[1] According to the Washington Post, “Israel formally declared war against the Palestinian militant group Hamas on Sunday [October 8, 2023] as it reeled from a surprise attack [on October 7] that killed more than 700 people, opening the way for a major escalation in fighting that already threatened to engulf the region.” Over six months later, the Associated Press “is calling the present conflict between Israel and the militant Palestinian group Hamas a war, given the widespread and ongoing nature of military operations in Israel and Gaza” (https://apstylebook.com/topical_most_recent [visited 6/13/2024]).