in the Federalist - The New York Times...Judges have long participated inand contributed to our robust legal community. The Judicial Code of Conduct urges that judges “not become

Robert P.Deyling

Assistant General CounselAdministrative Office of the United States Courts

One Columbus Circle, NEWashington, D.C. 20544

Dear Mr. Deyling:

We write to express our deep concern with the exposure draft of Advisory Opinion

No. 117, recently issued by the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct Committee. We believe

the exposure draft conflicts with the Code of Conduct, misunderstands the Federalist Society,

applies a double standard, and leads to troubling consequences. The circumstances

surrounding the issuance of the exposure draft also raise serious questions about the

Committee’s internal procedures and transparency. We strongly urge the Committee to

withdraw the exposure draft.

Judges have long participated in and contributed to our robust legal community. The

Judicial Code of Conduct urges that judges “not become isolated from the society in which

[we] live[].”1 To that end, Canon 4 of the Code allows judges to serve as members—and even

officers—of “nonprofit organization[s] devoted to the law, the legal system, or the

administration of justice.”2 The commentary to Canon 4 “encourage[s]” judges to “contribute

to the law” through membership in “a bar association, judicial conference, or other

organization dedicated to the law,” including those focused on “revising substantive and

procedural law.” For good reason. We are all better served when judges expose themselves

to a wide array of legal ideas. And we would like to think that those organizations benefit

from having judges participate in them.

1 Canon 4 Commentary.2 Canon 4(A)(3). Moreover, Canon 4 authorizes judicial participation in community affairs more broadly: “A

judge may engage in extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational,

religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, lecture, and teach on

both law-related and nonlegal subjects.”

March 18, 2020

Membership in the Federalist Society is wholly consistent with the Code. Until

recently, the Committee agreed. It previously recognized that members of the judiciary may

join the American Constitution Society and donate to the Federalist Society.3 Given these

prior opinions and the text of the Code, we are disturbed by the draft’s new position that

membership in the Federalist Society violates the Code.

The Committee offered a few reasons for its departure from the text and its long-held

understanding of the Code. First, the Federalist Society purportedly advocates for “factional”

policy positions rather than the “general improvement of the law.”4 Second, the mission of

the Federalist Society would cause the public to “view judges holding membership in [the

Society] to hold, advocate, and serve … conservative interests.”5 And third, although the

Federalist Society is not a “political organization,” membership “implicate[s] Canon 5’s broad

prohibition against political activity.”6 All of these arguments rest on a flawed understanding

of the Federalist Society and of the Code itself.

Take the claim that the Federalist Society advocates particular policies, rather than the

general improvement of the law. The draft fails to identify a single “policy position” taken by

the Federalist Society. That is because—to the best of our collective knowledge—the

Federalist Society has never, in its several decades of existence, lobbied a policymaking body,

filed an amicus brief, or otherwise advocated any policy change. We are at a loss to understand

how membership can be seen as “indirect advocacy”7 of the organization’s policy positions

when the organization itself takes no policy positions.

The most the Committee can say is that the Federalist Society “describes itself as ‘a

group of conservatives and libertarians dedicated to reforming the current legal order’” and

that it has “promoted appreciation for the ‘role of separation of powers; federalism; limited,

constitutional government; and the rule of law inprotecting individual freedom and traditional

3 Exposure Draft 4–5.4 Id. at 6–7.5 Id. at 7.6 Id.7 Id.

2

values.’”8 These broad, bedrock principles lie at the foundation of our American

constitutional order. Joining an organization that supports these principles simply cannot

prohibit judicial service. Adherence to these principles at most suggests partiality in favor of

the Constitution itself, which all judges must support and defend.

Moreover, the Committee has previously approved judicial membership in

organizations that advocate far more specific legal positions. For example, it has blessed

membership in the American Law Institute,9 which seeks to “clarify, modernize, and otherwise

improve the law.”10 The Institute pursues this goal by publishing restatements and model

codes, which advocate detailed changes to all aspects of the law. The Federalist Society’s

approach to reform is comparatively mild. Instead of taking specific legal or policy positions,

it facilitates open, informed, and robust debate. Indeed, anyone who attends a Federalist

Society event will encounter a diversity of views far exceeding that of many law schoolfaculties. Although not all of us are members of the Federalist Society, all of us who have

attended its events can attest to this. As the New York Times has reported, Federalist Society

events “scrupulously include liberals as well as conservatives.”11 Every current member of the

Supreme Court has participated in at least one Federalist Society event, as have hundreds of

current and former federal judges of all judicial philosophies. So have countless progressive

scholars and attorneys, including Jack Balkin, William Eskridge, Michael Gerhardt, Heather

Gerken, Neal Katyal, Reva Siegel, Geoffrey Stone, Nadine Strossen, and Laurence Tribe.12

Judicial membership in such organizations should be encouraged, not banned.

The Committee is wrong to term the activities of the Federalist Society as “political.”13

Canon 5 of the Code forbids judges from joining or contributing to any “political

organization,” but “does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon

8 Exposure Draft 6 (quoting Federalist Society, Our Background, https://fedsoc.org/our-background).9 See Advisory Op. No. 93.10 American Law Institute, About ALI, https://www.ali.org/about-ali.11 Neil A. Lewis, A Conservative Legal Group Thrives in Bush’s Washington, New York Times (Apr. 18, 2001),https://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/18/us/a-conservative-legal-group-thrives-in-bush-s-washington.html.12 See generally Federalist Society, Contributors, https://fedsoc.org/contributors.13 Exposure Draft 7.

3

4.”14 To avoid any conflict with Canon 4, the commentary to Canon 5 narrowly defines a

“political organization” as “a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate

for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political

candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.” Canon 5’s prohibition

plainly does not apply to a law-related organization like the Federalist Society. Accordingly,

Federalist Society programs cannot fairly be described as “political,” especially given the

diversity of views reflected by judicial and other participants.

The exposure draft’s conclusions also rest on a double standard. As the draft

acknowledges, the Federalist Society was formed as an alternative to the largest national

voluntary bar association, the American Bar Association. Yet the Committee opposes judicial

membership in the Federalist Society while permitting judicial membership in the ABA. This

disparate treatment is untenable.

For some time now, the ABA has taken “public and generally liberal positions on all

sorts of divisive issues.”15 What’s more, the ABA does so by directly advocating for particular

outcomes inparticular cases.16 Not long ago, the ABA submittedan amicus brief ina pending

Supreme Court case related to abortion.17 The ABA also filed amicus briefs in other

contentious cases like Masterpiece Cakeshop18 and Trump v. Hawaii.19 And before that, the ABA

weighed inon cases involving gender identity,20 affirmative action,21 same-sex marriage,22 and

14 Canon 5(C).15 Adam Liptak, Legal Group’s Neutrality Is Challenged, N.Y. Times (Mar. 30, 2009),https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html.16 See generally ABA, Amicus Library, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/amicus/1998-present.17 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v.Gee, 140 S. Ct. 35 (mem.) (2019) (No. 18-1323), 2019 WL 6524880.18 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Masterpiece Cakeshop,Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (No. 16-111), 2017 WL 5152968.19 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S.Ct. 2392 (2018) (No. 17-965), 2018 WL 1605656.20 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondent, Gloucester Cty. Sch. Bd.

v. G.G. ex rel. Grimm, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (mem.) (2017) (No. 16-273), 2017 WL 894897.21 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fisher v. Univ. of Texasat Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) (No. 14-981), 2015 WL 6754979.22 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Obergefell v. Hodges, 135S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (Nos. 14-571, 14-574), 2015 WL 1045422.

4

the Second Amendment.23 In fact, over the last decade, the ABA has filed more than 100

amicus briefs in many of our nation’s most charged cases.24 The Federalist Society has not

filed even one. Likewise, the ABA routinely lobbies Congress,25 while the Federalist Society

does nothing of the sort.

Despite the ABA’s open political advocacy, and its support for specific outcomes in

pending cases, the Committee has blessed judicial membership in the ABA while banning

judicial membership in the Federalist Society. The explanation for this differential treatment?

The Committee says that the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society are

different because “[a] reasonable and informed public would view judges holding membership

in these organizations to hold, advocate, and serve liberal or conservative interests.”26 But it

is strikingly inconsistent to prohibit membership in the Federalist Society because the public

might view it as conservative, while blessing membership in the ABA because the ABAconsiders itself non-partisan. To make matters worse, this double standard rests on a critically

flawed factual premise, for it is simply not true that the Federalist Society takes legal or policy

positions.

As this inconsistency shows, the Committee’s “evolving public perception” standard27

requires either discriminatory application or sweeping prohibitions. Neither option is

defensible. If this standard were limited to prohibit membership inonly one organization that

takes no legal, policy, or political positions—the Federalist Society—the Committee’s

approach would constitute rank discrimination based on its erroneous perception of a

Federalist Society viewpoint. On the other hand, if the “evolving public perception” standard

were fairly applied to all organizations that might take positions on one or another legal issue,

the consequences would be startling. Among other things, judges’ membership in specialty

bars, law school communities, and even churches would be called into question.

23 Brief for the American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Dist. of Columbia v. Heller,554 U.S. 570 (2008) (No. 07-290), 2008 WL 136349.24 ABA, Amicus Library, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/amicus/1998-present.25 Rhonda McMillion, 16 Success Stories for ABA Advocacy During the 115th Congress, ABA J. (Dec. 21, 2018),http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/top_aba_lobbying_successes_in_the_115th_congress.26 Exposure Draft 7.27 Id. at 12.

5

Consider specialty-bar associations. These associations provide networking and

mentoring opportunities for students, lawyers, and judges of various backgrounds. But they

often take policy positions and advocate for legal change.28 Likewise, many file amicus briefs

in charged Supreme Court cases.29 And if a “reasonable and informed public” could impute

to judicial members of the Federalist Society positions that the Society does not in fact take,

then it surely could also impute to judicial members of specialty-bar associations the various

positions that those organizations do officially take. Thus, under the Committee’s new

position, judges should not participate in specialty-bar groups.

Judicial involvement in law schools would fare no better. Many members of the

judiciary teach at law schools. Some are even tenured faculty. If the public comes to perceive

certain law schools as liberal or conservative, must judges resign their posts? Law schools

frequently litigate to advance specific legalpositions,either directly or throughfundedclinics.30

More broadly, they take policy positions on pending legislation,executive actions, and judicial

nominations.31 Under the exposure draft’s standard, it is difficult to see how judges could

continue to maintain any formal affiliation with these law schools.

The exposure draft’s “evolving public perception” standard could sweep in even

religious organizations as well. Surely judges can be members of their churches, temples, and

mosques; to suggest otherwise would raise serious constitutional questions under the No

28 For example, the Hispanic National Bar Association is “committed to advocacy on issues of importance tothe 58 million people of Hispanic heritage living in the U.S.” Hispanic Nat’l Bar Ass’n, About Us,

https://hnba.com/about-us/. The National LGBT Bar Association files amicus briefs and advocates for legalchanges at the state and national level. LGBT Bar, Advocacy, https://lgbtbar.org/programs/advocacy/. Andthe National Native American Bar Association frequently supports legislation. Nat’l Native Am. Bar Ass’n,

Resolutions, Letters of Support, and Other Initiatives, https://www.nativeamericanbar.org/initiatives-2/.29 See, e.g., Brief for Coalition of Bar Associations of Color (National Bar Association, Hispanic National BarAssociation, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, and National Native American Bar Association)

as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fisher v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, 136 S. Ct. 2198 (2016) (No. 14-981), 2015 WL 6668478.30 See, e.g., Christian Legal Soc’y v. Martinez, 561U.S. 661 (2010); Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights,Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006); Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003); Thomas Kaplan, Yale Law, Newly Defeated,Allows Military Recruiters, N.Y. Times (Oct. 1, 2007), https://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/

nyregion/01yale.html; Yale Law Sch., Challenging the Refugee and Travel Ban (Feb. 1, 2017),https://law.yale.edu/yls-today/news/challenging-refugee-and-travel-ban. InFisher alone, over 70 colleges anduniversities participated as amici.31 See, e.g., Alexandra Chaidez & Aidan Ryan, Harvard Spent $600K Lobbying Congress in 2018, Harvard Crimson(Feb. 4, 2019), https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2019/2/4/Harvard-spends-600k-lobbying/.

6

Religious Test Clause and the First Amendment. But the Committee’s “evolving public

perception” test would prohibit membership in any church, temple, or mosque that takes a

“policy position” on contested issues of the day. And there are many religious organizations

that do that—on topics ranging from abortion, to capital punishment, to climate change. Why

can judges be members of some groups that take policy positions—like churches—but not

other groups that do not take policy positions—like the Federalist Society? Perhaps the

Committee would say that churches are not legal societies, but that distinction cannot be right.

Political rallies are not legal societies either. Yet the Canons and the Committee plainly

prohibit judicial participation in those.

In short, the “evolving public perception” standard could lead to the disqualification

of judges who participate in specialty bars, judges who teach, and judges of faith—to pick just

three obvious examples. Moreover, these judges would be disqualified not because they

violated their oath to decide cases impartially regardless of their individual backgrounds, and

not because they violated the text of the Code of Conduct, but only because “evolving public

perception” somehow demanded it. Such a standard finds no support in the text or structure

of the Code, or in past precedent interpreting it. The “evolving public perception” standard

should be abandoned.

Finally, the issuance of this exposure draft raises several procedural questions. Since

its inception, the federal judiciary has insisted that each judge on a collegial body may state his

or her individual views on the question presented. Yet reports suggest that no member of the

Committee was permitted to dissent, despite some members’ strong disagreement with the

exposure draft. Other reports suggest that at least one member of the Committee was barred

from voting on the draft. And the Committee’s reversal of its prior, settled interpretation—

without any relevant change in the Code—raises further concerns.

We cannot know what has gone on behind closed doors, so we take no position on the

propriety of what has or has not occurred within the Committee. But we do believe that the

Committee’s procedures raise pressing questions. If the Committee adheres to its opinion, we

think that it is obligated to address the following issues:

7

* * *

Some of us are appellate judges, some of us are trial judges, and some of us serve on

specialized courts. Some of us are membersof the Federalist Society, andsome of us are not.

Some of us regularly speak at Federalist Society events, some of us do so occasionally, and

some of us have never done so. We serve jurisdictions spanning the United States and hold

different views on many legal topics. But today, we are in firm agreement about one thing:

The Committee should withdraw Draft Advisory Opinion No.117.

• Was the Committee unanimous in its support of this policy? If not, howmany members dissented, and what were their reasons?

• Were members of the Committee allowed to note and explain their dissents?Ifnot, why not? Does any regulation of the Judicial Conference authorizethe suppression of dissent?

• Are any members of the Committee also members of the ABA? If so, didthese members recuse themselves from working and voting on the exposuredraft?

• What specific circumstances justify the Committee’s overruling of its prior,settled position that the Code permitted judicial membership in the ACS?

Sincerely,

GREGORY G.KATSAS

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

S.A NDREW O LDHAM

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFifthCircuit

.W ILLIAM

U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theEleventhCircuit

AMUL R.THAPAR

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

AA LAN LBRIGHT

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theWesternDistrictofTexas

ROY K.ALTMAN

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

H.P RYORJ R

8

-MR AÚL ARXUACH

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofPuertoRico

MORRIS S. ARNOLD

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

W.B ARRY A SHE

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofLouisiana

ANNEMARIE AXON

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

S.B RIDGET B ADE

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheNinthCircuit

BR.S TAN AKER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictofGeorgia

BOBBY R.BALDOCK

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

BT HOMAS ARBER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theMiddleDistrictof Florida

J. CAMPBELL BARKER

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

BA MY ARRETT

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuit

ALICE M.BATCHELDER


BC ARLOS EA


KENNETH D.BELL

U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina

ROGER T.BENITEZ

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

C ONEY

M.A RIAS

T IBURCIO

9

BM ARK ENNETT


DUANE BENTON


W.W ENDY B ERGER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theMiddleDistrictof Florida

JOSEPH F. BIANCO

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

BS TEPHANOSIBAS

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheThirdCircuit

J. P. B OULEE

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

DUDLEY H.BOWEN

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

C.D AVID B RAMLETTE

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictof Mississippi

ELIZABETH L.BRANCH

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

BA NDREW RASHER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theMiddleDistrictof Alabama

MICHAEL B.BRENNAN

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

A.D ANIEL B RESS


SUSAN BRNOVICH

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

JOHN W.BROOMES

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas

L YNN

10

BA DA ROWN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofTexas

JEFFREY VINCENT BROWN

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas

L.M ICHAEL B ROWN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofGeorgia

BRIAN C. BUESCHER

U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska

J.P ATRICK B UMATAY


BD AVID UNNING

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofKentucky

LILES C.BURKE


BL ARRY URNS

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictof California

JOHN K.BUSH


S.J AY B YBEE


JOSÉ A. CABRANES

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

CONSUELO M.CALLAHAN

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CE D ARNES

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheEleventhCircuit

JULIE E.CARNES


A LAN

11

IIIJ OEL

U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theTenthCircuit

JENNIFER CHOE-GROVES

U.S. Court of International Trade

R.S TEPHEN C LARK

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofMissouri

ROBERT H. CLELAND

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

CE DITH LEMENT


M.B RIAN C OGAN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofNewYork

DANIEL P.COLLINS


F.C OLM C ONNOLLY

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofDelaware

ROBERT J. CONRAD JR.


CL.S COTT OOGLER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofAlabama

CLIFTON L.CORKER

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee

CD AVID OUNTS

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theWesternDistrictofTexas

JAMES C. DEVER III

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

DANIEL D.DOMENICO

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado

M.C ARSON

B ROWN

12

F.J OEL D UBINA


STUART KYLE DUNCAN

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

H.A LLISON E ID

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheTenthCircuit

KURT D.ENGELHARDT


IIIC HARLES

U.S.DistrictCourtfor the SouthernDistrictof Texas

.J OSEPH

U.S.Courtof AppealsforVeteransClaims

MARTINFELDMAN

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

FD.T HOMAS ERRARO

U.S.MagistrateJudgefor theDistrictofArizona

D.MICHAEL FISHER

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

E.J AMES G ATES

U.S.MagistrateJudgefor theEasternDistrictof NorthCarolina

DOUGLAS H. GINSBURG


L.J AMES G RAHAM

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictofOhio

BRITT C. GRANT


L.STEVENGRASZ


L.F ALVEY

R.E SKRIDGE

, J R

13

GR ICHARD RIFFIN

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSixthCircuit

STEVEN D. GRIMBERG

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

W.R AYMOND G RUENDER

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheEighthCircuit

RALPH B.GUY JR.


HJ. R ANDAL ALL


M.P HILIP H ALPERN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictofNewYork

THOMAS M.HARDIMAN


Q.W ILLIAM H AYES

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictof California

KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON


HJ AMES ENDRIX


JAMES C. HO


HW M . T ERRELLODGES

U.S.DistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofFlorida

RYAN T. HOLTE

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

JOSEPH M.HOOD

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

W ESLEY

A LLEN

14

J.M ALCOLM H OWARD

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofNorthCarolina

FRANK M. HULL


J.D ANIELLE H UNSAKER


SANDRA IKUTA


JD ENNISACOBS

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSecondCircuit

JE DITH ONES


KENT A. JORDAN


D.S EAN J ORDAN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofTexas

WILLIAM F.JUNG

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

J.M ATTHEW K ACSMARYK


PAUL J. KELLY JR.


F.C HAD K ENNEY

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofPennsylvania

JEREMY D.KERNODLE

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

RAYMOND M.KETHLEDGE


H OLLAN

15

J.A NDREW K LEINFELD


CHERYL ANN KRAUSE


R.E DWARD K ORMAN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofNewYork

BARBARA LAGOA


C.R OYCE L AMBERTH

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofColumbia

LD OMINICANZA

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofArizona

JOAN LARSEN


LK ENNETH EE


RICHARD J. LEON

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

T.M ICHAEL L IBURDI

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofArizona

STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

J.R OBERT L UCK


GREGORY E. MAGGS

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

PAUL L.MALONEY

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan

K IYUL

16

A.D ANIEL M ANION

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheSeventhCircuit

STANLEY MARCUS


B.P AUL M ATEY


COREY L.MAZE


FT REVOR ADDEN


W.M ATTHEW M C F ARLAND

U.S.DistrictCourtfortheSouthernDistrictofOhio

DAVID W. MCKEAGUE


R.T ERRY M EANS


ERICF. MELGREN


J.S TEVEN M ENASHI


STEVEN D. MERRYDAY

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida

MK IMBERLY OORE

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit

WILLIAM T. MOORE, JR.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia

FEDERICO A.MORENO

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

N.M C

17

MM ICHAEL OSMAN

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theDistrictofOregon

GRAHAM C. MULLEN


ME RIC URPHY


RICHARD E. MYERS II

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

B.J OHN N ALBANDIAN


J.W ILLIAM N ARDINI


GLORIA M.NAVARRO

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada

D.R YAN N ELSON


KEVIN NEWSOM


J.C ARL N ICHOLS


HOWARD C. NIELSON, JR.

U.S. District Court for the District of Utah

,R OBERT II

U.S.MagistrateJudgefor the EasternDistrictof NorthCarolina

REED O’CONNOR

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

DIARMUID F. O’SCANNLAIN


T. N UMBERS

18

M.M ARTHA P ACOLD

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofIllinois

GERALD J. PAPPERT

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

H.M ICHAEL P ARK


KEITH A. PESTO

U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania

J.P ETER P HIPPS


E.S ARAH P ITLYK

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofMissouri

MARK T.PITTMAN

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas

J.D AVID P ORTER


GENE E.K.PRATTER

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

A.L ORETTA P RESKA

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictofNewYork

R. DAVID PROCTOR


PS HARONROST

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheFederalCircuit

A. RAYMOND RANDOLPH


NEOMIRAO


19

,W ILLIAM II

U.S.DistrictCourtfor the NorthernDistrictof Georgia

CHAD READLER


C.D ANNY R EEVES


JULIUS N.RICHARDSON

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

.F ERNANDO

U.S.DistrictCourtfor the SouthernDistrictof Texas

M.E LENI R OUMEL

U.S.CourtofFederalClaims

LEE RUDOFSKY

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

IIR ODOLFO

U.S.DistrictCourtfor the SouthernDistrictof Florida

ALLISON J. RUSHING


J.A RTHUR S CHWAB

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theWesternDistrictofPennsylvania

MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

C.S TEVEN S EEGER

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofIllinois

DAVID B.SENTELLE


LAURENCE H.SILBERMAN


M.R AY

A. R UIZ

R ODRIGUEZJ R

20

,E UGENE J R .


CHARLES R.SIMPSON III

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

SR AAG INGHAL

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theSouthernDistrictofFlorida

JERRY E. SMITH


,M ILAN J R .


SB RANTLEYTARR


WILLIAM S. STICKMAN IV

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

R.D AVID S TRAS

U.S.CourtofAppealsfortheEighthCircuit

RICHARD F. SUHRHEINRICH


J.R ICHARD S ULLIVAN


RICHARD C. TALLMAN


A.D AVID T APP

U.S.CourtofFederalClaims

HOLLY TEETER


JAMES A.TEILBORG

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

D.S MITH

E.S ILER

21

B.G ERALD T JOFLAT


JOSEPH L. TOTH

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims

J.M ICHAEL T RUNCALE

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofTexas

TIMOTHY M. TYMKOVICH


UP ATRICK RDA

U.S.TaxCourt

TG REGORY ATENHOVE


LAWRENCE VANDYKE


L.R ICHARD V OORHEES

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theWesternDistrictofNorthCarolina

JUSTIN WALKER

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky

.J OHN

U.S.Courtof Appealsfor theSecondCircuit

HENRY R. WILHOIT, JR.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

WW.K EITH ATKINS

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theMiddleDistrictof Alabama

T. KENT WETHERELL, II

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida

J. HARVIE WILKINSON III


M.W ALKER

F.V AN

J R

22

R.D ON W ILLETT


STEPHEN F. WILLIAMS


WA LLEN INSOR

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theNorthernDistrictofFlorida

VICTOR J. WOLSKI

U.S. Court of Federal Claims

D.J OSHUA W OLSON

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theEasternDistrictofPennsylvania

WL ISA OOD


SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas

WP ATRICK YRICK

U.S.DistrictCourtfor theWesternDistrictofOklahoma

G ODBEY

23

Documents

in the Federalist - The New York Times...Judges have long participated inand contributed to our robust legal community. The Judicial Code of Conduct urges that judges “not become