Here's the newsletter, which you should subscribe to. And his discussion about Judge Altman:
Judge of the Week: Judge Roy Altman.
Pro-Palestine or even pro-Hamas law students aren’t the only
ones getting into controversies over opining on the Israel-Hamas conflict. It’s
happening to federal judges too—specifically, Judge Roy Altman (S.D.
Fla.).
On Thursday, Judge Altman published an opinion piece for the
National Review, The Israelis Slaughtered by Hamas Were Not ‘Settlers.’
Responding to Yale professor Zareena Grewal—who defended Hamas’s October 7
attack on Israel by asserting that the victims were “settlers, not civilians,”
and deserved what they got—Judge Altman employed historical and legal analysis
to argue that “under international law, they had just as much right to be where
they were as an American does in New York City.”
Given how passionate people can get about the Israel-Palestine
conflict, it should come as no surprise that Judge Altman received flak for his
piece. After prominent Florida litigator David
Oscar Markus took to his SDFLA Blog, the outlet of record for the
Southern District of Florida, to praise the judge, anonymous commenters argued
that it was inappropriate, perhaps even unethical, for Judge Altman to opine on
a controversial issue in this way. The next day, also at the SDFLA Blog, Judge Raag Singhal defended
Judge Altman, arguing that he had the right to speak out and praising him as
“an exceptional judge, colleague, and friend.”
After reviewing the potentially relevant provisions, I don’t
believe Judge Altman violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. Canon 4,
which governs so-called “Extrajudicial Activities,” provides that “[a] judge
may speak, write, lecture, teach, and participate in other activities
concerning the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice”—which
would include the application of international law to the Israel-Hamas
conflict. Nor did his commentary violate Canon 5, “A Judge Should Refrain from
Political Activity,” which focuses on running for political office, endorsing
candidates, and political fundraising.
That said, was it imprudent for Judge Altman to have weighed in
on such a hot-button issue? The case for that is stronger—and my husband/editor
Zach thinks that writing this National Review piece was unwise. I don’t know if
I’d go that far, but I do believe Altman should recuse in future cases where
his NR essay might cause his impartiality to be reasonably questioned—for
example, as posited by one commenter, a case involving a local professor fired
for antisemitic or pro-Hamas remarks (even if recusal might not be strictly
required, as Judge Singhal argued in his SDFLA Blog post).
Even before this latest controversy, some South Florida lawyers
have wondered whether Altman, although highly respected as a jurist, might be
more suited to politics than the monastic life of the federal bench. He’s
gregarious, well-connected, and well-credentialed, with degrees from Columbia,
where he was a star on both the football and baseball teams, and Yale Law.
Rumor has it that Senator Marco
Rubio (R-Fla.) pushed Altman as a judicial nominee to prevent
him from becoming a political rival. So don’t be shocked if, at some point in
the next few years, Judge Altman leaves the bench to plunge into politics.
As one judge enters hot water, two others are exiting it. In a
two-page, unsigned order, the Second Circuit Judicial Council declined to reconsider its earlier order
clearing Chief Judge William
Pryor (11th Cir.) and Judge Corey Maze (N.D. Ala.) of misconduct in
connection with their hiring of controversial clerk Crystal Clanton. As
you might recall, Clanton was accused of making racist statements in a
pre-law-school job—and defended against the racism charges by none
other than Justice Clarence
Thomas. Based on my latest SCOTUS clerk hiring report, Justice Thomas
still has one open spot for October Term 2025; don’t be shocked if it gets
filled by Crystal Clanton. (If you have any intel on this, please drop me a
line.)
In nominations news, the Biden Administration named its forty-first round of judicial nominees:
Magistrate Judges Jacquelyn
Austin (D.S.C.), Jacqueline
Becerra (S.D. Fla.), Melissa
Damian (S.D. Fla.), and Julie
Sneed (M.D. Fla.), and former federal prosecutor David Leibowitz (S.D.
Fla.), now an in-house lawyer. I’m struck by how common it is these days to
pick district-court nominees from the ranks of magistrate judges. This strategy
makes sense, since magistrate judges tend to be highly competent, not too
political, and relatively easy to confirm—helpful in states like South Carolina
and Florida that have two Republican senators. But I also think it reflects the
reality that serving as a federal trial judge isn’t as attractive as it once
was for high-powered practitioners; given the growing gap between law firm and
judicial pay, they give up a lot more financially compared to sitting
magistrate judges.
