Judge James C. Ho has officially resigned from the Federal Judges Association.
According to Fox News, Judge Ho criticized the association for its uneven condemnation of threats against judges, signaling a bias that he could not support.
The resignation occurred during a speaking engagement at the University of Michigan Law School, facilitated by the Federalist Society. Here, Judge Ho expressed his disillusionment with the Federal Judges Association's recent statement condemning threats against judiciary members but failing to address similar past incidents involving conservative judges.
The March 5 statement by the Federal Judges Association, which comprises over 1,100 members, targeted recent threats and aimed to affirm the need for judges to operate without intimidation. However, Judge Ho noted the absence of similar advocacy in the past when conservative justices like Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh— who survived an assassination attempt— faced similar threats. This disparity in response prompted Judge Ho to question the association’s commitment to judicial independence, regardless of political leanings.
The association later clarified its stance through a public statement, emphasizing its dedication to law interpretation without personal bias. It underlined the importance of ensuring the judiciary's security and integrity, vital for maintaining public trust in an impartial judicial system.
Judge Ho articulated his concerns about the association's selective approach to protecting judges. He argued that such selective advocacy might either indicate insincerity about judicial independence or an ideological bias that undermines the principle's universality.
Expressing deep concern, Judge Ho elaborated on the implications of this selectivity:
I was very surprised by that statement. And the next morning, I sent an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign. I researched for myself, and I also asked the association if they ever issued any such statements when Justice Thomas received attacks, or Justice Alito. Justice Kavanaugh dealt with an assassination attempt. We’ve had federal district judges in Texas and in Florida – as well as, I’m sure, other states, but those are the ones that come to mind immediately – all faced the kinds of things that that statement was complaining about and more. Did we see these statements in 2024 or 2023 or 2022? From what I can tell, no.
He continued, critiquing the notion of selective justice and its implications for judicial legitimacy.
Judge J. Michelle Childs, president of the Federal Judges Association and also appointed by former President Joe Biden, highlighted the challenges the judiciary currently faces, including threats and potential impeachments, which complicate their role.
Judge Ho’s resignation casts a spotlight on the potential consequences of perceived biases within judicial advocacy groups. He warned that apparent inconsistency might not only damage the group's credibility but also affect public confidence in the judicial system's impartiality.
Emphasizing the gravity of the situation, Judge Ho suggested that such actions could either be seen as dishonesty or as exclusive support based on ideological congruence, both of which could degrade the principle of judicial independence.
In his comments, Judge Ho criticized the plausible erosion of judicial independence if it becomes contingent on ideological alignments rather than being a universally upheld principle. He warned, "This concept applies to a lot of things. If you’re telling the truth, you care about this principle, but there are just some people who have views that are so anathema to you that you don’t think they are worthy of this principle that you expound on."
Judge Ho's departure from the Federal Judges Association highlights a critical dialogue about the impartiality and integrity expected of judicial bodies and the need for consistent advocacy for all members of the judiciary, irrespective of their political leanings.
