Judge Resigns from Federal Judges Association Over Perceived Bias in Protecting Judiciary
A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 has resigned from the Federal Judges Association (FJA), the largest association of federal judges, citing concerns over the group’s selective defense of judicial independence. Judge James C. Ho, of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, voiced his disapproval of the FJA’s recent statement condemning alleged threats against judges, arguing that the organization remained silent for years while conservative members of the judiciary faced similar scrutiny and attacks.
Judge Ho announced his resignation during a speaking event hosted by the conservative Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School on Saturday. His decision stems from the FJA’s March 5 statement, which emphasized that "judges must be permitted to do their jobs without fear of violence or intimidation of any kind." While Judge Ho acknowledged the importance of protecting judges, he questioned the timing and consistency of the FJA’s stance.
"I was very surprised by that statement," Judge Ho said. "And the next morning, I sent an email to the organization saying that I wanted to resign."
He explained that he had researched whether the FJA had issued similar statements in the past when conservative justices and judges faced attacks. He specifically mentioned Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Samuel Alito, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who faced an assassination attempt. He also pointed to federal district judges in Texas and Florida, among others, who have experienced threats and intimidation.
"Did we see these statements in 2024 or 2023 or 2022? From what I can tell, no," Judge Ho stated.
Judge Ho argued that the FJA’s selective defense of judicial independence undermines the organization’s credibility and politicizes the judiciary. He believes that by only speaking out against threats when they affect judges whose decisions align with certain political ideologies, the FJA is failing to uphold its commitment to protecting the entire judiciary.
"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," Judge Ho asserted. "Because one of two things turns out to be true when you’re selective in this way. And either of these options, I think, is a bad thing."
He elaborated that the first possibility is that the FJA does not genuinely care about judicial independence and is only paying lip service to the principle. By failing to defend conservative judges who have been subjected to threats and attacks, the organization is essentially admitting that its commitment to judicial independence is conditional.
"Option number one is that you’re basically lying, that you actually don’t care about this principle because you didn’t stand up for it when the shoe was on the other foot, and so you’re telling the world essentially we’re not seriously committed to judicial independence," Judge Ho explained.
The second, and potentially more damaging, possibility is that the FJA genuinely believes in judicial independence but only extends that protection to judges whose views align with their own. This implies that certain judges are deemed unworthy of the same level of protection and respect as others, based solely on their political leanings.
"The alternative is perhaps even worse, which is that you are telling the truth – you do care about this, this principle, whether it’s judicial independence or free speech," Judge Ho continued. "If you’re telling the truth, you really 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 concluded by stating that such selective defense of judicial independence is perceived by many as sanctimonious and ultimately harms the cause it intends to promote.
"And so what you may think is a statement born of righteousness I think is perceived by a lot of people as merely sanctimonious," he said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Federal Judges Association for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
The president of the Federal Judges Association, U.S. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, wrote in an email to members last week that the "judiciary faces growing threats, including violence, intimidation, disinformation, and unprecedented impeachments that challenge its independence," according to Reuters.
Following Judge Childs’ email, the FJA released a more detailed public statement, without mentioning any specific threats against any specific judges.
The statement began by acknowledging that "recent events are a clear and urgent reminder that federal judges play a crucial role in upholding our democracy as guardians of the rule of law."
The group emphasized the historical tension between the three branches of government, including criticism of judicial interpretations. The FJA stated that it "strives to ensure that accurate information is shared with all American citizens regarding the role of the judiciary as defined in the U.S. Constitution: to impartially interpret the laws that have been created by the U.S. Congress and enforced by the Executive branch."
The statement stressed that judicial decisions are based on the "laws on the books" rather than individual opinions and commended those, including Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who have spoken out against the rise in criticism, threats, and violence aimed at members of the judiciary.
"Irresponsible rhetoric shrouded in disinformation undermines the public’s confidence that our justice system can fulfill its constitutional duties," the statement said.
The FJA concluded by asserting that "the security of federal judges and all those serving in the judicial branch of our government is fundamental to their ability to uphold the rule of law, and to fulfill their constitutional duty without fear or undue influence. Any erosion in the independence of the judiciary is a threat to our Constitution and to democratic rule of law. Ensuring judicial security is not just about protecting individuals, it is about preserving the integrity of our legal system and the public’s trust in an impartial judiciary."
Judge Ho’s resignation highlights the growing concerns about the politicization of the judiciary and the perception of bias within organizations that are meant to protect its independence. His departure raises questions about whether the FJA can effectively represent all members of the federal judiciary and whether its actions are truly motivated by a commitment to upholding the rule of law, or by a more partisan agenda.
