“Let’s Not Bring Back Jail for Swearing”: Online at The New York Times, law professors Jacob D. Charles and Matthew L. Schafer have a guest essay that begins, “With its new term starting this month, the Supreme Court will likely confront calls to upend constitutional law yet again. One very possible target is people’s everyday right to voice their political opinions, to speak up, even just to swear.”

At some level each judge must make your own decision regarding use of social media. If you decide never to use social media that surely is ethical. But what if you decide to participate in social media? The Canadian Judicial Council has released updated guidelines for federal judges using social media, outlining advice on the content they post, how they identify themselves on social media platforms, burner accounts, whom they connect with, and what platforms they post on.

The guidelines are a substantial expansion of the recommendations provided in the most recent edition of the Ethical Principles for Judges, the CJC’s framework for ideal judicial conduct, which briefly warns judges to be mindful of how the public will perceive their social media conduct.

If you attended the magnificent lecture by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky you heard his critique of the United States Supreme Court decision in  Grants Pass v. Johnson. The case opened the door for jurisdictions that wish to use criminalization — including measures such as encampment sweeps and increased enforcement of quality-of-life offenses — to address homelessness and held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit making it a crime to sleep in public. So what should we do about homelessness? Governing Daily has an interesting article that suggests that there is no panacea in criminalizing homelessness. https://www.governing.com/urban/criminalizing-homelessness-can-lead-to-more-crime?utm_campaign=Newsletter%20-%20GOV%20-%20Daily&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8aINTiCOUTcGJnzvfYsPrrmvYXu1z-E2oydrbrrNOOx8NrYhV5RtEXkxRhTb8VLLBSOtZqPY90cK-EY6RLzCH6znXBGg&_hsmi=328251408&utm_content=328251408&utm_source=hs_email

A Red Mass is a Catholic Mass annually offered towards all members of the legal profession, regardless of religious affiliation marking the opening of the judicial year. The religious service requests guidance from the Holy Spirit for all who seek justice, and offers the legal community an opportunity to reflect on the power and responsibility of all in the legal profession.

Originating in Europe during the High Middle Ages, the Red Mass derives from the red vestments traditionally worn in symbolism of the tongues of fire (the Holy Spirit).  Its name also exemplifies the scarlet robes worn by royal judges that attended the Mass centuries ago. Should judges wear their robes (regardless of the color of the robe to the Red Mass?

There is controversy about the Red Mass in Arizona. https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2024/10/03/court-buries-finding-justices-erred-in-wearing-robes-at-religious-function/. The  Arizona Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee received a request to weigh in on the ethical implications of judges wearing official robes at the Red Mass.  

The committee returned a formal opinion against donning a robe at the Red Mass, or any religious service, given a potential appearance of undue influence, and reaffirmed the same upon a request for reconsideration from the state high court. Then, a majority of the justices voted to withdraw the opinion – effectively shielding it from public view and preventing it from manifesting in the state’s ethics canon. 

So what is the right approach a judge should take regarding wearing a judicial robe at a religious service? Share your thoughts.