Federal judges aren’t supposed to lob political attacks at other federal judges. That’s the message sent by an order rebuking senior district judge Michael Ponsor for writing a New York Times op-ed column in May criticizing Justice Samuel Alito over the ridiculous flap about flags flown by the justice’s wife (I discussed the Ponsor column here at the time.)

The conservative Article III Project, run by Mike Davis, brought a judicial misconduct complaint against Ponsor, which his circuit referred to the Fourth Circuit in order to have an impartial decision. Chief Judge Albert Diaz (an Obama appointee) concluded:

The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary. . . . Furthermore . . . viewed in the timeframe during which the essay was published, including the substantial press coverage detailing the calls for Justice Alito’s recusals from the then-pending January 6 cases, it would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito’s recusal.

Sanctions on Judge Ponsor were, appropriately, limited to a public apology: “I offer my unreserved apology and my commitment to scrupulously avoid any such transgressions in the future. . . . In the future, if I am contemplating any public, nonjudicial writing, I will take advice from our Committee representative before publication.”

Good advice for any judge to take before wading publicly into a hot controversy, especially about a fellow judge.