Judge James C. Ho’s resignation from the Federal Judges Association raises alarms on selective concerns about threats to judicial independence.
Key Takeaways
- Judge James C. Ho resigned from the FJA over its selective condemnation of threats against judges.
- The FJA’s statement focused on the role of judges in democracy but did not specify cases or individuals.
- The Association’s statement came amid efforts to discredit judges opposing certain policies.
- Ho criticized the FJA for lacking response to past threats against conservative judges.
- Supporting judicial independence should be universal, not politicized.
Judge Ho’s Resignation and Federal Judges Association’s Focus
U.S. Circuit Judge James C. Ho, appointed by Donald Trump, recently resigned from the Federal Judges Association (FJA) after openly criticizing its position on judicial threats. At a Federalist Society event, he highlighted inconsistencies in the FJA’s statements, which he argued inadequately represented the dangers faced by conservative judges. The FJA emphasized the crucial role of federal judges in maintaining democracy and condemned irresponsible rhetoric threatening judicial independence. However, the statement did not specify individual cases or judges despite occurring during attempts to undermine judges opposing White House policies.
Judge Ho described the FJA’s statement as uncharacteristically narrow, leading to his resignation. He asserted that threats against judges, regardless of political affiliations, should receive equal condemnation. The FJA’s statement acknowledged increasing threats, including violence and disinformation, against the judiciary. Judge Ho argued that not addressing threats against conservative judges is an implicit form of politicization within the judicial system. These selective concerns, he contended, undermine the judiciary’s integrity and independence, which should remain free from political influence.
Selective Concerns and Public Confidence
The FJA’s President, Judge Michelle Childs, underscored a growing trend of threats targeting the judiciary, emphasizing the necessity of accurate information to uphold public confidence in judicial processes. Despite this, the FJA did not issue similar statements when conservative judges, such as Justice Brett Kavanaugh, faced attacks. Judge Ho criticized this omission, likening it to selective concern—a practice he believes is damaging to maintaining judicial independence.
The FJA did not publicly comment on Judge Ho’s resignation, reflecting a lack of engagement in addressing the selective criticism. Ho took a firm stance, explaining that judicial independence should not align with political preferences. He remarked, “You can’t say that you’re in favor of judicial independence only when it comes to decisions that you like. That’s not protecting the judiciary, that’s politicizing the judiciary.”
Implications for Judicial Impartiality
Judge Ho’s resignation provokes consideration of how judicial bodies address threats and maintain impartiality in a politically charged environment. With the FJA applauding figures like Chief Justice John Roberts for tackling rising threats, the organization’s selective engagement with threats raises concerns on how judicial independence is perceived and protected. Ho’s resignation signifies a call for transparent and unbiased support for all judges, irrespective of political inclinations. The FJA faces the challenge of addressing these criticisms lest it risks diminishing the judiciary’s perceived impartiality.
Ultimately, the focus remains on resisting political influence and preserving the judiciary’s core values of fairness and independence—a principle Ho emphasized during his resignation announcement.
Sources
1. Trump-Appointed Judge Quits US Judicial Group Over Its Statement About Threats
2. Federal judge appointed by Trump quits group over statement on threats
