Federal Appeals Court Dismisses Ethics Complaints Against Judge Over Remarks on Trump
March 25, 2025, 3:29 pm CDT
A federal judge was cleared of ethics violations by a judicial council following comments about the potential dangers of public statements by authority figures.
In a recent ruling, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Senior U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton did not breach any ethical guidelines when he discussed the potential for violence stemming from remarks made by public officials, particularly in reference to judges and their families. The ruling came in response to two complaints filed against Walton regarding his public statements.
Chief Judge Michael A. Chagares emphasized in the decision, dated January 31, that Walton did not comment on any pending cases nor did he engage in actions that could be seen as prejudicial to the justice system. His commentary came during an interview with CNN, where he addressed the inflammatory remarks made by former President Donald Trump regarding Judge Juan Merchan, who was overseeing Trump’s criminal case involving allegations of falsifying business records tied to hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.
During the interview on March 28, 2024, Walton responded to Trump’s derogatory references to Judge Merchan, labeling him a “radical left judge” and questioning his impartiality. Trump had also made critical remarks about Merchan’s daughter. In response to the situation, Walton articulated the importance of discretion for individuals in power, stating, “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.” Reuters reported this commentary as part of his larger observation about the responsibility that comes with high status in society.
Walton highlighted the realistic implications of such comments, noting, “I can’t get into someone’s mind to say whether they appreciate the impact that they’re doing, but I would think that any reasonable thinking person would appreciate that when they say things, they can sometimes resonate with others.” Furthermore, he reflected on his own experiences with threats and the tragic incidents involving judges’ families, advocating for care in public discourse to prevent unintended consequences.
According to the judicial council’s findings, Walton’s remarks were neither partisan nor did they pertain to the specifics of Trump’s legal issues. Chagares reported that Walton’s comments were aimed at fostering an understanding of the implications of reckless speech by figures in power and reaffirmed the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining the rule of law in a balanced manner.
The identity of the individuals who filed the ethics complaints against Walton was not disclosed. However, Mike Davis, a conservative activist and founder of the Article III Project, publicly acknowledged his role in submitting one of the complaints.
This ruling reinforces the framework within which judges navigate public commentary, reminding all parties of the delicate balance required in speaking out on matters of public interest.
