I’ve blogged before about why I disagree with judges boycotting specific law schools in order to influence law school culture. In David Lat’s substack, Judge Lee Rudowski, who is considering whether to join the Columbia clerkship boycott, raised a point about the role of judges that is relevant to this discussion and that I think is worth discussing:
Whether I join or not, I generally (sadly) agree that Columbia has become an incubator for anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. I do think that at some point, judges must step up as leaders of the bar and help stop the spread of virulent Jewish hatred that is being normalized on college campuses and elsewhere across the country.
Beyond the work we do in court or in chambers, judges play an important role in our society. We have a special responsibility to defend the rule of law and oppose mob violence, especially when that violence echoes an ancient evil that led to the murder of 6 million Jews and millions of other innocent people.
I respectfully disagree.It seems to me that the judges as a judge They play no important role in our society other than the work they do in the courts or chambers. They should not be involved in any official capacity or try to help American society address issues like anti-Semitism.
In the specific case of federal judges, federal judges are empowered because they fit a certain profile. They have the right age, the right education and the right perspectives that the President and the Senate are looking for to fill judicial positions. Being nominated and confirmed gives them judicial power to decide cases. This is extremely important work and we should all be grateful to judges for their public service.
Having said that, in this process judges are not qualified to play a wider role in society. Judges are not watchdogs of our culture, nor are they experts on mob violence or how to address it. If, as individuals, judges wish to play a wider role in society, they are free to step down from the bench and pursue that goal. But I don’t think they should play the role of judge.
The problem, as I see it, is that Judge Rudowski considers the “special responsibilities” of judges to be difficult to distinguish from politics. I don’t mean politics in the Republican vs. Democratic sense (although it’s probably no coincidence that all the judges who have publicly participated in the boycott were appointed by Trump). I am referring to politics more broadly, namely how our society resolves competing claims about justice and fairness. When these claims do not involve legal claims made by one party in court, turning a political issue into a legal issue, I think judges acting in their official capacity should stand by and watch.
Of course, if a judge wants to engage in law reform issues or write law review articles or other legal commentary, that’s fine. They have the same right to do so as anyone else. But it seems to me that the Resistance Framework crosses an important line: it uses the official government power of judges to hire legal staff to influence the cultural and political world. I don’t think that line should be crossed.
