D. Interviewing judges

This will vary by jurisdiction and judge.

There are no Eleventh Circuit opinions on this topic. Whether a judge agrees to give an interview will vary by judge and jurisdiction.

Anyone interested in interviewing a judge should contact the judge’s chambers, preferably in writing (if time permits), to explain the purpose of the request.

This will vary by jurisdiction and judge.

The Third Circuit has not addressed this.

Nothing found specific to the Fifth Circuit.

In Franklin v. McCaughtry, 398 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 2005), the Seventh Circuit held that a state court judge should have recused himself after he was mentioned and quoted in a newspaper article as having written a memorandum disapproving of the release of indigent prisoners on bail, which used the example of a defendant over whose case the judge was presiding.  The memorandum and the judge's “contacts with the newspaper were extrajudicial activities vis-a-vis” the defendant’s case, and showed actual bias.  Id. at 961-62.  Compare United States v. Board of Sch. Com'rs, 503 F. 2d , 80-81 (7th Cir. 1974) (district judge presiding over school desegregation case did not have to be recused based on published interview “which allegedly evinced an attitude of prejudgment on the liability of the state officials”; Court found judge’s remarks were “derived from proceedings had before the court, and not on attitudes or conceptions that were formed outside the courtroom” and did not constitute disqualifying bias).

There appears to be no Eighth Circuit case law on interviewing judges.

The Alabama Cannons of Judicial Ethics provide as follows:

A judge should abstain from public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court, and should require similar abstention on the part of court personnel subject to his direction and control. This subsection does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.

Ala. Canons Jud. Ethics 3(A)(6) (2019).

This is not addressed.

No reported decisions.

California’s Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3B(9), prohibits judges from making “any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court” or making “any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.” The Advisory Committee Commentary explains that this prohibition extends through any appellate proceedings until final disposition of the matter. The Commentary also explains that “[a]lthough this canon does not prohibit a judge from commenting on cases that are not pending or impending in any court, a judge must be cognizant of the general prohibition in Canon 2 against conduct involving impropriety or the appearance of impropriety.”

In addition, under Canon 3B(10), “[a] judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding, but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the community.”

The Colorado Judicial Branch’s public information officer is the gatekeeper for judges throughout the state, and reporters who have individual requests are encouraged to start with the public information officer.

Reporters are free to seek interviews with judges, but both the state and federal judicial conduct rules forbid judges from speaking about cases that are pending in front of them (or are on appeal from their court and therefore could return to them one day) in a way that affect the outcome of the case.  Conn. Code of Jud. Conduct 2.10; Code of Conduct for United States Judges Canon 3(A)(6).   Judges typically err on the side of caution and avoid making any statement whatsoever about pending cases.  The one outlier group is the justices of the United States Supreme Court, who are not bound by the rules applicable to all other federal judges and so can from time to time appear to speak in ways that no other federal judge might.

The Code of Judicial Conduct for the State of Florida is available at https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/Opinions/Judicial-Ethics-Advisory-Committee/Code-of-Judicial-Conduct. Among the canons of conduct, a judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary; avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of the judge’s activities; perform the duties of judicial office impartially and diligently; and regulate extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial duties. No specific rule or canon applies to judicial interaction with the media and consenting to media interviews, but any such judicial conduct must conform with the Judicial Code of Conduct. Florida judges virtually never comment on pending cases and only rarely comment on cases that have concluded.

Nothing prohibits the interviewing of judges. In a report adopted by the Georgia Judicial Council and State Bar, a state judicial commission recently recommended that public understanding and support of the judicial system should be encouraged, in part by training “judges to educate the public about the role of the courts and the importance of an independent judiciary” and by encouraging “the Institute of Continuing Judicial Education to instruct judges on how to do so consistent with codes of judicial conduct.” See Embracing the Courts of the Future: Final Report of the Next Generation Courts Commission (March 2014) at 22; id. at 21–22 (“Courts at all levels in Georgia must promote long-term public confidence and support of the judicial system by demonstrating and practicing transparency, establishing as one of their core functions the effective provision of convenient and timely public access to court procedures, schedules, records and proceedings.”).

Judges are required to abstain from making public comments regarding a pending or impending proceeding.  But, the Code of Judicial Conduct does not generally prohibit a judge from making a public statement in the course of her official duties “or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.”  Idaho Code of Jud. Conduct, Canon 3(B)(9).  Additionally, a judge may comment on proceedings in which she is a litigant in a personal capacity but may not comment if she is a litigant in an official capacity, such as in a mandamus action.  Id. Commentary.

There appears to be no reported Illinois case law on this issue.

Judges may be interviewed, except that the judges may not violate the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct when giving interviews. The Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct may be found here: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/jud_conduct/. Additionally, the Code provides that judicial candidates may receive questionnaires or requests for interviews from the media or other organizations. Rule 4.1, Comment 17. The Code advises responding candidates to “give assurances that they will keep an open mind and will carry out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially if elected” to avoid violating Rule 4.1(A)(13), which prohibits judges and judicial candidates from making pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with their impartiality regarding issues likely to come before the court. Rule 4.1, Comment 17.

Iowa judges and staff may explain court procedures in general terms and provide copies of written rulings and orders, but ethical rules require that judges and court staff not comment on pending cases or litigation likely to come before the courts. See Reporter’s Guide to Iowa Court Systems, https://www.iowacourts.gov/media/cms/reporters_guide_to_IJB_2014_646362F2671A4.pdf. Also, Iowa Supreme Court Justices, Iowa Court of Appeals Judges, and their staff do not explain or elaborate upon appellate opinions or speculate about the impact of an opinion on the law. Id. “This is to preserve the authority of the court’s written opinion as law and to avoid interpretations or statements that might conflict with or confuse the precise legal meaning of the court’s opinion.” Id. at 12.

Kansas judges may agree to be interviewed about the judicial system.  Rules of judicial conduct include a comment that:  “Judges are uniquely qualified to engage in extrajudicial activities that concern the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, such as by speaking. . . . In addition, judges are permitted and encouraged to engage in educational . . . activities.” Rules Related to Judicial Conduct / Kansas Canons of Judicial Conduct / Canon 3, Rule 3.1 (comment), http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Judicial_Conduct/Canon%203.pdf, which appears in http://www.kscourts.org/rules/Judicial_Conduct.asp.  The Kansas Judicial Branch’s public information director is available to answer questions about contacting and interviewing judges.  See Appellate Court Contacts, Kansas Judicial Branch,  http://www.kscourts.org/court-administration/general-contact-information/default.asp.

Judges readily have participated in educational programs on courts and media.  For example, the annual meeting of state judges on June 18, 2015, in Overland Park, Kansas, included panel discussions about how judges respond to media requests for access to probable cause affidavits and about media-judicial relations generally.

Still, judges generally take a firm position that they must not comment on a pending case.  They are bound by Kansas Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct that prohibit them from making comment that “might reasonably be expected to affect” the outcome of a pending proceeding “or impair its fairness.”  The rules also prohibit judges from making “any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”  Court personnel under the judges’ control also are subject to the rule.  Judges, however, are permitted to comment publicly in the course of performing their official duties, and they publicly may explain court procedures.  See Rules Relating to Judicial Conduct /Kansas Canons of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2 / Rule 2.10(a): http://www.kscourts.org/pdf/Code%20of%20Judicial%20Conduct.pdf.

There is no Kentucky law directly addressing interviews of judges.  Kentucky state court judges typically will not give interviews concerning ongoing cases or specific matters that may come before them in a judicial capacity because of various provisions in the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct, Ky. Sup. Ct. R. 4.300.

Canon 3(A)(8) of the Canons of Judicial Conduct states: “A judge shall not, while a proceeding is pending in any Louisiana state court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness . . . . This subsection does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.”

Judges are not available for interview regarding active cases. The Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court or the court’s spokesperson will respond to media inquiries.

Research does not reveal any Michigan authority discussing parameters for interviews with judges. However, Michigan judges are bound by the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, and pursuant to Canon 3(A)(6), judges “shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court.”

Research did not reveal any opinion where a Minnesota court addressed this issue.

There are no restrictions on approaching a judge for an interview.  But the court has discretion to decline an interview.

Section 5-203(B)(9) of the Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct generally prohibits judges from commenting on pending litigation. Some Nebraska judges are sometimes willing to give interviews on general topics related to the judicial system, but are not required to do so.

Judges are prevented from making any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing. Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, Judicial Canon 2.10. Furthermore, a judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office. Id.

Neither the press nor public has the right to interview judges. Whether a judge should give an interview is governed by the New Hampshire Code of Judicial Conduct. See Sup. Ct. R. 38.

There are no reported New Mexico cases regarding interviews of judges.

While Ohio courts have not addressed the issue of media attempts to interview a judge during the pendency of a case, judges are prohibited, under Rule 2.10 of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, from making “any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court . . . .”  See Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, Supreme Court of Ohio & Ohio Judicial System, http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/LegalResources/Rules/conduct/judcond0309.pdf (last visited Jan. 30, 2020).

There is no prohibition against a judge granting an interview, but most judges appear reluctant to speak with the media about a case.  They will do so under circumstances they believe consistent with Rule 2.10 of the Oklahoma Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct states “a judge should abstain from public comment about a pending proceeding in any court….” Pa. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3A(6). This subsection does not prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining, for public information, the procedures of the court. Id.

In Commonwealth v. Druce, 848 A.2d 104 (Pa. 2004), the court held that a judge’s statements to the media concerning a defendant’ sentencing violated Pa. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3A(6), but did not per se require him to recuse himself from the case. While recognizing the Code “does not have the force of substantive law,” the court emphasized its approval of the Code’s standards of conduct and found a Code of Judicial Conduct violation. Id. at 109. The court also stated it “d[id] not approve of members of the judiciary speaking to the press about cases pending before them . . . .” Id.

Rhode Island courts have not directly addressed this.

Canon 4 of the South Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct provides: “A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extrajudicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) demean the judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.” A judge will virtually always decline to comment about a matter that is pending or was previously before the courts, for fear of violating Canon 4 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judges, though, do occasionally grant interview requests for discussions about the judge’s family or private life, or for general discussions about the law and access to it.

Judges are bound by the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of Professional Conduct promulgated by the Tennessee Supreme Court.  Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10 (Code of Judicial Conduct); Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8 (Rules of Professional Conduct).  For example, “A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”  Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 10 Canon 2 Rule 2.10(A).  Other rules may restrict what a judge can say in an interview.  But there is no blanket prohibition on granting interviews to the media.

The Texas Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges must not make public comments about pending or impending cases that indicate the judge’s probable decision on the matter.  See Tex. Code Judicial Conduct 3.B(10).  This ethical canon does not prohibit public statements (including statements on social media) entirely, and does not prohibit the judge from explaining court procedures for informational purposes.  See id.

No Utah authority specifically addresses access to interviewing judges.

There is no general prohibition on interviewing judges.  See, e.g., State v. Bacon, 163 Vt. 279, 308, 314, 658 A.2d 54 (Vt. 1995) (noting that interview of trial judge was published in a newspaper while the case was ongoing).  The Vermont Code of Judicial Conduct does, however, provide that “[a] judge shall not,whileaproceeding is pending or impending in any court, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness or make any nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.”  Vt. A.O. 10 Canon 3(B)(9).  This does not, however, “prohibit judges from making public statements in the course of their official duties or from explaining for public information the procedures of the court.”  Id.  At least one Vermont judge has been disciplined for statements that he made in a newspaper interview because “the judge’s statements violated the judicial canon requiring public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” In re Mandeville, 144 Vt. 608, 609, 481 A.2d 1048, 1049 (Vt. 1984).

West Virginia’s Code of Judicial Conduct outlines ethical rules for judicial statements on pending and impending cases. Canon 2.10(A) prohibits a judge from making “any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.” W. Va. Code of Jud. Conduct Canon 2.10(A). In addition, under Canon 2.8(C), “[a] judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict but may express appreciation to jurors for their service to the judicial system and the community.” W. Va. Code of Jud. Conduct Canon 2.8(C).

 

There is no prohibition in Wisconsin law on interviewing judges.

There is no prohibition on interviews of judges, but rarely are they granted.