Protected Statements by Judges and Judicial Candidates

A judge or judicial candidate maintains their constitutional protections and may express views in a non-adjudicative capacity regarding issues or beliefs. It is not professional misconduct for a judge or judicial candidate to engage in speech or conduct protected by the United States and Ohio Constitutions, including Article I, Section 6 of, or the First Amendment to, the United States Constitution as well as Article I, Section 11 or Article II, Section 12 of the Ohio Constitution. Comment [1] This rule should not be interpreted as endorsing judges or judicial candidates making pledges, promises, or commitments regarding issues t hat are, or may come, before the court. A judge or judicial candidate should refrain from making such pledges, promises, or commitments on matters that could come before them. See Rules 2.10 and 4.1(A)(5). [2] While the restrictions in Rules 2.10 and 4.1 on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, a judge or judicial candidate may engage in constitutionally protected speech. See Scope [5]. [3] If pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of a judicial office are made, then a judge should disqualify himself or herself if the issue on which the judge made pledges, promises, or commitments comes before them in a case. See Rule 2.11(A)(5). Simply making a protected statement is not, by itself, a reason for discipline. Disciplinary Counsel v. Grendell, Slip Opinion No. 2025-Ohio-5239; accord Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002); In re Judicial Campaign Complaint Against O’Toole, 141 Ohio St.3d 355 (2014). 15 Canon 2 A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently. 16