Judiciary
Federal judge’s warning about potential violence after Trump’s comments was not ethics violation, 3rd Circuit says
A federal judge didn’t violate ethics rules when he commented about the potential for violence when “people in positions of authority” make negative comments about a judge or the judge’s family members, according to a federal appellate judicial council. (Image from Shutterstock)
A federal judge didn’t violate ethics rules when he commented about the potential for violence when “people in positions of authority” make negative comments about a judge or the judge’s family members, according to a federal appellate judicial council.
Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton of Washington, D.C., didn’t comment on the merits of a pending matter and did not engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, said Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at Philadelphia. Chagares wrote the opinion for the 3rd Circuit’s judicial council that dismissed two ethics complaints against Walton.
Reuters and Law360 have coverage.
Chagares’ Jan. 31 opinion, which was released last week, did not identify Walton as the judge in question. But a Walton representative confirmed to Law360 and Reuters that he was the subject of the opinion.
Walton had commented on CNN on March 28, 2024, in response to a question about then-candidate Donald Trump’s social media attacks against New York Judge Juan Merchan, according to prior coverage by Reuters. Merchan was presiding in a case accusing Trump of falsifying business records to conceal a hush-money payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels. Trump was convicted in May 2024.
Trump had criticized Merchan as a “radical left judge” and a Trump hater at “the highest level” in a March 22, 2024, post on Truth Social, his social media platform, according to another prior story by Reuters. Trump also labeled Merchan’s daughter a “rabid Trump hater” before Walton appeared on CNN.
Reuters published this comment by Walton: “I think it’s very important that people in positions of authority be very circumspect in reference to the things that they say, so that they’re not causing others to act on what they say and maybe cause injury or death to someone as a result of that.”
Law360 referred to additional comments from Walton’s interview.
“I can’t get into someone’s mind to say whether they appreciate the impact that they’re doing, but I would think that he’s—any reasonable thinking person would appreciate that when they say things, they can sometimes resonate with others,” Walton said. “And I think that’s particularly true when you have somebody who has status in our society, and they make certain statements that can cause people to act on those statements, even if they don’t necessarily intend for someone to do so.”
None of Walton’s remarks concerned the merits of Trump’s case, and they do not constitute partisan political activity, Chagares said.
“Rather, [Walton] spoke about the experience of receiving threats, reflected on the tragedy of colleagues whose family members had been killed, and encouraged circumspection with respect to public remarks that can have unintended consequences,” Chagares said. Walton “also emphasized the importance of the independence of judicial officers in maintaining the rule of law and ensuring that laws are applied equally to all who appear before a judge.”
Chagares did not identify who filed the complaints. But conservative activist Mike Davis, the founder of the Article III Project, a conservative group, has said he filed one of them.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
