A federal judge Monday granted a preliminary injunction against Pennsylvania's rules of judicial conduct, making way for judicial candidates to answer questions about their views on legal and political issues prior to an election.
Federal District Judge Marvin Katz said such rules – challenged by six judicial candidates and the Pennsylvania Family Institute – are unconstitutional.
James Bopp, lead counsel in the case, said the injunction is good news.
“The district court’s decision has freed judicial candidates to exercise their right to announce their views to voters,” he said, “and allows those voters to be informed on Election Day.”
In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that states that elect judges can't use professional ethics rules to muzzle the speech of candidates.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said despite the high court ruling, many states have continued to silence judges.
“In the last several years, numerous federal courts, including this one, have quite simply ordered offending states to stop such nonsense and abide by the Supreme Court decision,” he said. “This is a basic First Amendment issue.”
