Des Moines Sun

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan have sent a letter to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, raising concerns about federal judges making anonymous and partisan public statements against the Supreme Court.

The letter follows recent reports of federal judges describing their relationship with the Supreme Court as a “war zone” and accusing the high court of “undermining the lower courts.” Grassley and Jordan argue that such remarks could undermine public trust in the judiciary.

“As the Chairmen of the Committees on the Judiciary in the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, we preside over the congressional committees with legislative and oversight jurisdiction over the federal courts. We are deeply concerned that these public attacks on the Court from sitting federal judges damage the public’s faith and confidence in our judicial system. When judges call into question the legitimacy of their own branch of government, they erode faith in the institution itself,” wrote Grassley and Jordan.

The lawmakers are asking Chief Justice Roberts whether these comments violate ethical rules for federal judges, specifically those outlined in the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. They also want to know if there will be any investigation or response from within the judiciary.

“We urge you to consider the appropriateness of these public yet anonymous comments and whether they breach the ethical obligations of all federal judges. While we do not yet know the full extent of the comments or who the judges are, we remain convinced that judges should not be going to the press to undermine and denigrate the Supreme Court,” they continued.

Federal judges must follow specific ethical canons under their code of conduct. These include requirements to uphold integrity, promote confidence in impartiality, and avoid commenting publicly on pending cases. In 2024, an incident involving District Judge Michael Ponsor was resolved by Chief Judge Albert Diaz after Ponsor published an essay criticizing a sitting Supreme Court justice. Diaz found this violated several canons because it expressed personal opinions on controversial issues and commented on matters before any court.