A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court has opened the door for judges in the state to publicly issue political endorsements, reversing a ban that had been in place for decades.
On April 2, the court ruled 5-1 that the restriction violated free speech rights protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling arose from a disciplinary case involving former Clinton County Common Pleas Judge John Rudduck, who used his personal Facebook page to back his son Brett Rudduck’s 2023 campaign for a seat on the Clinton County Municipal Court. Brett Rudduck ultimately lost the election.
A disciplinary panel determined that John Rudduck’s activity on social media violated the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct, which prohibits judges from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Ohio has enforced this ban since at least 1954, when the state supreme court adopted similar rules from the American Bar Association’s model policies.
The panel recommended that John Rudduck receive a public reprimand and remove the posts. During the disciplinary proceedings, he did not raise constitutional challenges. However, the Ohio Supreme Court held final authority and ultimately ruled that the ban infringed on his right to free speech.
“Judges do not give up their First Amendment right to engage in political speech simply by assuming office,” Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.
Kennedy added that in situations where a judge’s impartiality could be questioned due to an endorsement, other provisions in the state judicial code require them to recuse themselves or face disqualification.
Although the majority struck down the rule as unconstitutional, they also offered a “word of caution,” noting that the ability to make political endorsements does not mean judges should exercise it. Kennedy wrote that it would have been “far more prudent” for John Rudduck to refrain from posting about his son’s candidacy.
“Judges are held to the highest standard of ethical conduct and judges must be cognizant of how their actions appear to the public,” she said. “That may mean that a judge should forgo making some public statements even if those statements would constitute protected free speech.”
Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost voiced his support for the majority decision, calling it “overdue.”
“While it is extraordinarily unwise for any judge to make political endorsements, the First Amendment was not – and cannot be – repealed by the Rules of Judicial Conduct,” he wrote in an April 13 post on X. “If judges can be gagged, what other important professions could be prohibited from speaking?”
Republican Justices Pat DeWine, Joe Deters, Dan Hawkins and Megan Shanahan joined the majority opinion, while Jennifer Brunner, the court’s only Democrat, did not take part in the decision.
Justice Pat Fischer stood alone in dissent. He argued that the court should not have addressed a constitutional issue since neither side raised it, and said the ruling dismisses the “well-reasoned” decisions of several federal appeals courts that upheld similar restrictions on judicial endorsements in other states.
Leave a Reply