Judicial impartiality is a cornerstone of the American legal system, ensuring that judges make decisions based solely on the law and the facts of a case, rather than their personal beliefs or biases. However, the issue of judges making political donations has raised concerns about the appearance of impartiality. Judge Juan Merchan, who is overseeing former President Donald Trump's criminal case in New York, has recently come under scrutiny for his political contributions.
According to federal campaign contribution data, Judge Merchan appears to have donated $15 to President Joe Biden's 2020 campaign. He also donated $35 to Democratic causes, including to a group that aimed to defeat Trump in the presidential election. Some argue that these contributions are enough to disqualify him from presiding over the case.
The issue of judges making political donations is not new. In fact, judicial candidates collectively gave more than $100,000 in political donations to party organizations between 2013 and 2019. However, the controversy surrounding Judge Merchan's donations highlights the need for greater scrutiny of judicial candidates and the potential impact of political donations on judicial impartiality.
One concern is that judges who make political donations may be perceived as biased or partial towards a particular party or candidate. This could undermine public confidence in the judiciary and erode the rule of law. As legal scholar Steven Lubet argues, "Judges cannot be seen as partisans, even if they are not consciously biased in any particular case."
Another concern is that judges who make political donations may be influenced by the interests of the party or candidate they supported. This could lead to decisions that favor certain groups or individuals, rather than being based solely on the law and the facts of the case.
In Judge Merchan's case, some argue that his political donations to Democratic causes suggest that he is biased against Trump and may be more likely to rule against him in the criminal case. However, others argue that the donations are a small amount and do not necessarily indicate bias or partiality.
The American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits judges from making political contributions to a candidate or a political organization. However, this rule varies from state to state, and some states allow judges to make political donations as long as they do not publicly endorse a candidate or engage in partisan activity.
In New York, where Judge Merchan presides, judges are allowed to make political donations, but they are prohibited from publicly endorsing a candidate or engaging in partisan activity. The State Committee on Judicial Ethics has issued several opinions on the issue of judges making political contributions, stating that such donations are permissible as long as they do not create an appearance of impropriety.
However, the controversy surrounding Judge Merchan's donations suggests that the appearance of impartiality may be just as important as actual impartiality. As Lubet notes, "The appearance of independence is often as important as the reality, because public confidence in the judiciary depends on the perception of impartiality."
In conclusion, the issue of judges making political donations raises important questions about the appearance of impartiality and the potential impact of political contributions on judicial decision-making. While judges have the right to engage in political activity as citizens, they must also be mindful of the need to maintain public confidence in the judiciary and avoid any appearance of bias or partiality. As the case of Judge Merchan shows, even small donations can raise concerns about judicial impartiality and the need for greater transparency and accountability.
