Unlike U.S. Supreme Court, which has no code of ethics, Idaho judges are accountable | Opinion

“A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny and accept freely and willingly restrictions that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen.” — Commentary to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Recently, certain United States Supreme Court justices have been in the news for accepting but failing to disclose gifts of private plane travel, vacations, school tuition, and other items they have received from individuals they are acquainted or friendly with. The “Code of Conduct for United States Judges” quoted above is like other codes of conduct that apply to virtually every judge, state or federal, in the country, except those on the U.S. Supreme Court, who have never adopted a code for themselves.

All State of Idaho judges are subject to a Code of Judicial Conduct established and enforced by the Idaho Judicial Council, a group of nine including the chief justice of the Idaho Supreme Court, a district judge, a magistrate judge, two attorneys, and four citizens. Every member except the chief justice is appointed by the governor. This code establishes ethical rules under four general canons that govern an Idaho state judge’s or justice’s conduct while performing their job. The canons also extend to what these judges do in their private affairs, and to their activities during elections, which all Idaho judges face. Thus, the canons apply to Idaho’s Supreme Court justices, and every other state judge in the state.

Here is what the Canons require:

“Canon 1: A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.”

Rules within this Canon require judges to be good citizens, promote confidence in the judiciary, and avoid any abuse of the prestige of the office they hold.

“Canon 2: A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently.”

Judges must perform their duties timely and efficiently, without bias or impartiality for or against any party. Judges must conduct themselves with the highest professionalism, with patience and dignity, assuring the rights of all parties to be heard. Sometimes, disqualification from certain cases may be necessary and appropriate.

“Canon 3: A judge shall conduct the Judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities in such manner as to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office.”

Outside the office, judges cannot be members of discriminatory organizations or participate in activities that might interfere with their duties or appear to undermine their independence or impartiality. Though judges are encouraged to participate in educational, religious, or charitable organization activities, they cannot do any direct fundraising. Once on the bench, a judge may no longer practice law. Of great importance, a judge in Idaho may not accept gifts or anything of value that would appear to undermine their integrity or impartiality.

“Canon 4: A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the Judiciary.”

Idaho judges are defined as non-partisan and must conduct themselves that way, even though all of them stand for election in some form, and the manner of initially taking the bench may vary.

Any alleged failure to comply with the rules within the Canons is subject to investigation by the Idaho Judicial Council, either through the filing of a complaint by a third party or on the Council’s own initiative. The procedure established to lodge a complaint regarding ethical violations can be found at judicialcouncil.idaho.gov.

Distinctions must be drawn, however, between ethical violations and legal decisions. Historically, nearly all complaints to the Council regard issues with the outcome of a court case and are not within the authority of the Council to resolve. Only appellate courts review the actual decisions made by a judge to determine whether they are correct. Being wrong in a legal decision is not an ethical violation.

In the event any ethical violation is found, disciplinary measures imposed against a judge can range from education orders or warnings to private or public reprimands, to, in extreme cases, a recommendation to the Supreme Court that a judge be removed from office.

Idaho is blessed to have a high-quality judiciary and ethical misconduct by trial or appellate court judges is extremely rare. Upon assuming the bench and entering public service, judges willingly accept a diminished social circle and limitations on their out-of-court lives. I am proud to count myself among them.