Federal Judge Violates Judicial Code While Lecturing Justice Alito on Ethics in New York Times Essay, Forced to Issue Apology for Misconduct

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of Massachusetts openly criticized Justice Samuel Alito’s ethics in a New York Times guest essay, violating the sacred trust of impartiality expected from the judiciary.

The conservative advocacy group, the Article III Project, filed a formal complaint against Ponsor, leading to a misconduct finding and a public apology from the senior judge.

The complaint, filed in May 2024, stemmed from an op-ed authored by Judge Ponsor and published in The New York Times.

The article discusses the controversy surrounding Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s display of an upside-down American flag and an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at his properties, which some media outlets tied to Trump supporters during the events of January 6, 2021. Ponsor declared the flags as symbols of partisanship and questioned Alito’s ethical judgment.

Despite lacking direct evidence of ethical violations or pending cases involving the flags, Ponsor’s essay implied that Alito’s actions warranted recusal from cases related to January 6, casting doubt on the Supreme Court justice’s impartiality.

“To me, the flag issue is much simpler. The fact is that, regardless of its legality, displaying the flag in that way, at that time, shouldn’t have happened. To put it bluntly, any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized immediately that flying the flag then and in that way was improper. And dumb,” Ponsor wrote in the essay.

“The same goes for the flying of an “Appeal to Heaven” flag at Justice Alito’s vacation house along the New Jersey shore. Like the upside-down flag, this flag is viewed by a great many people as a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”

Chief Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a scathing rebuke of Ponsor’s actions.

“The essay expressed personal opinions on controversial public issues and criticized the ethics of a sitting Supreme Court justice. Such comments diminish the public confidence in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary in violation of Canons 1 and 2A.” said Diaz in the filed reply.

Keep reading

Unknown's avatar

Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Leave a comment