Ohio – Ohio has abruptly stepped into uncharted legal territory, becoming the only state in the country where judges are now allowed to openly support political candidates. The decision, delivered without the usual buildup of arguments or public scrutiny, has sparked immediate concern about what it means for trust in the courts.
A sudden shift with sweeping consequences
In a 5-1 ruling led by Sharon Kennedy, the Ohio Supreme Court struck down a decades-old rule that had long barred judges and judicial candidates from endorsing or opposing political figures. The move instantly set Ohio apart from every other state, where such restrictions still exist to protect the image of neutrality in the judiciary.
The decision did not follow the usual path. There were no full hearings, no detailed legal briefs addressing the core issue, and no broad public input. Instead, the court used a disciplinary case involving a retired judge to make a sweeping constitutional ruling that reshaped the boundaries of judicial conduct across the state.
At the center of the case was John Rudduck, a former Clinton County Common Pleas judge accused of violating ethics rules after posting support for his son’s political campaign. Rather than simply deciding whether Rudduck should face discipline, the court took a far larger step—eliminating the rule itself.
Legal experts alarmed by process and impact
The reaction from legal scholars and former judges has been sharp. Jonathan Entin explained why the original rule existed in the first place: “The idea of an independent and impartial judiciary assumes that judges are not simply politicians in robes.”
That principle, critics argue, is now under strain. By allowing judges to step directly into political campaigns, the line between legal decision-maker and political actor becomes harder to see.
Former justice Michael Donnelly described the ruling as an “Extremely unusual” move, pointing not just to the outcome but to how it was reached. “In this case the court acted as petitioner, decider, and potential beneficiary,” he said, emphasizing that the justices effectively changed the rules governing their own behavior without being asked to do so.
The lone dissent came from Republican Justice Patrick Fischer, who warned that the decision could weaken public faith in the system. He argued that when judges take part in political campaigns, their neutrality can be questioned and trust in their “ability to abide by the law and not make decisions along political lines” may erode.
Fischer went further, criticizing the court for building its ruling on arguments that were never even raised in the case. He wrote that the majority acted “based entirely on a constitutional argument that was never raised or briefed but was actively waived” by both sides involved.
Free speech vs. public trust
The majority framed its decision around constitutional rights. Chief Justice Kennedy wrote that “Judges do not give up their First Amendment right to engage in political speech simply by assuming office.” She also argued that the previous restriction was “vastly overinclusive” and not “tailored to serve a compelling state interest.”
But critics say that reasoning overlooks a key balance. While judges, like all citizens, have free speech rights, their role requires a level of restraint to maintain public confidence. The concern is not just what judges say, but how their words might affect cases that come before them later.
This concern becomes more real when considering the types of endorsements now allowed. Judges could openly support prosecutors, lawmakers, or attorneys—individuals who may later appear in their courtrooms. That possibility raises fears about conflicts of interest and whether cases might need to be reassigned or challenged.
As one observer, Turcer, put it: “They can now be just as partisan as the gubernatorial candidates.”
A break from precedent
Perhaps most striking is how far this decision departs from existing legal precedent. Courts across the country, including federal appeals courts, have upheld restrictions on judicial endorsements, arguing they are necessary to protect the integrity of the legal system.
Ohio’s ruling moves in the opposite direction, opening a door that other states have kept firmly closed.
Donnelly highlighted how unusual it is for a court to take such a step without the usual legal process. “Usually, the sole issue before us then,” he said, “is what recommendations do we want to side with on the consequences” of a disciplinary case. Instead, the court expanded the scope dramatically, turning a narrow ethics question into a statewide constitutional shift.
A lasting question about fairness
The immediate effect of the ruling is clear: judges in Ohio are now free to engage in partisan endorsements. The longer-term impact, however, is less certain—and potentially far more significant.
For many, the central concern is simple but profound. If judges are seen as political actors, can they still be trusted as neutral decision-makers?
That question was captured bluntly in the reaction that has echoed across legal circles and public discussion alike: “Who is ever going to believe you get a fair day in court”
