A federal judge was determined to have violated judicial ethics rules by criticizing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in an op-ed, according to an order made public on Dec. 17.
The judge’s criticism of Alito pertained to the flying of flags outside properties owned by Alito in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.
A judicial council made the finding about U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor of Springfield, Massachusetts, on Dec. 10, but it was not made public until this week when it was revealed by the conservative advocacy organization known as the Article III Project.
The group, led by Mike Davis, filed a judicial misconduct complaint earlier this year under the federal Judicial Conduct and Disability Act against Ponsor, alleging that the judge breached judicial ethics.
The Article III Project acknowledged that Ponsor did not explicitly cite any cases pending before Alito but said the judge’s statements could be construed as a call for Alito to be recused from Jan. 6-related cases that were before the Supreme Court at the time the op-ed was published.
In the weeks following the Jan. 6, 2021, incident at the U.S. Capitol—during Congress’s certification of the 2020 presidential election results—flags associated with the “Stop the Steal” movement, which claimed that President Joe Biden’s 2020 electoral win was fraudulent, were flown at Alito’s properties.
One was an upside-down U.S. flag displayed at Alito’s Virginia residence, and the other was a pre-Revolutionary War “Appeal to Heaven” flag displayed at his New Jersey beach house.
Alito said his wife flew the flags and that she was not making a statement about the 2020 election.
Ponsor, who was appointed in 1994 by President Bill Clinton, criticized Alito by name in a May 24 opinion column in The New York Times. The op-ed was titled “A Federal Judge Wonders: How Could Alito Have Been So Foolish?”
Ponsor wrote: “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.”
Posner also wrote that any reasonable judge should have realized the flag displays were inappropriate because they could be perceived as “a banner of allegiance on partisan issues that are or could be before the court.”
Acting in his capacity as a member of the Fourth Circuit Judicial Council, Judge Albert Diaz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that Ponsor violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.
The op-ed reduced public confidence “in the integrity and independence of the federal judiciary” and could be viewed as partisan commentary or a request for Alito to recuse himself from the Jan. 6 cases, Diaz wrote in the Dec. 10 order.
“The political implications and undertones of the essay violated Canon 3A(6)’s prohibition on publicly commenting on the merits of a pending matter,” Diaz wrote.
Ponsor told Diaz that he “did not have any particular case in mind” when he drafted the piece.
Diaz said that “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.”
Ponsor has apologized for the op-ed.
“For these violations of the Code, unintentional at the time but clear in retrospect, I offer my unreserved apology and my commitment to scrupulously avoid any such transgression in the future,” he wrote in a Nov. 20 letter that Diaz attached to his order.
The Article III Project’s Davis said he accepted Ponsor’s “apology letter at face value.”
“The courts and Judge Ponsor took this seriously,” he said in a statement.
The Epoch Times reached out to Ponsor and Alito for comments but did not receive any replies by publication time.
Reuters contributed to this report.
This article by Matthew Vadum appeared Dec. 19, 2024, in The Epoch Times.
Photo: Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito