US judges cleared of ethics breach for halting retirements after Trump election; Reuters, December 5, 2025

 Nate Raymond, Reuters; US judges cleared of ethics breach for halting retirements after Trump election

"Three federal judges who rescinded their decisions to retire from active service on the bench after President Donald Trump was elected, thus depriving him of vacancies he could fill, did not violate judicial ethics rules, a chief federal appellate judge has concluded.

Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston in three recently released opinions dismissed misconduct complaints filed against U.S. Circuit Judge James Wynn and two district court judges who had backtracked on their decisions to leave active service before Trump returned to office in January...

Livingston, who was appointed by Republican President George W. Bush, called the three judges' actions "unusual and unfortunate," given how the rescission of a retirement can render efforts in the White House and Congress to nominate new judges to fill their seats "a waste."

But she said no judicial ethics rule dictated when or whether federal judges, who under the U.S. Constitution are granted life tenure should or must retire. Such decisions, she said, are "discretionary and personal to the judge."

"The timing of a judge’s decision either to assume senior status or to reconsider that decision, does not, without more, raise an inference of misconduct," Livingston wrote."

What Justice Alito said on ethics and recusal in his confirmation hearings; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), June 17, 2024

Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel and Connor Ganiats , Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); What Justice Alito said on ethics and recusal in his confirmation hearings

"Recusals

Alito faced scrutiny for his initial failure to recuse from a case against the financial company Vanguard while serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, despite holding at least $390,000 in Vanguard funds. Alito maintained that his failure to recuse was a mistake that he later remedied, and that ruling in the case did not actually violate judicial ethics rules. 

Alito repeatedly stressed that he would recuse from cases where the ethics code required him to do so, despite the broad duty for Supreme Court justices to hear cases. When asked about the case by Senator Orrin Hatch, Alito said, “I not only complied with the ethical rules that are binding on Federal judges—and they’re very strict—but also that I did what I have tried to do throughout my career as a judge, and that is to go beyond the letter of the ethics rules and to avoid any situation where there might be an ethical question raised.”

When pressed further by Senator Russ Feingold, Alito said he would not commit to recusing from all Vanguard cases going forward, but, “I will very strictly comply with the ethical obligations that apply to Supreme Court Justices.” 

Later, during a back and forth with Senator Edward Kennedy about his Vanguard mutual fund not being on his recusal list, Alito said: “I am one of those judges that you described who take recusals very, very seriously.” 

Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations; The New York Times, May 17, 2024

William K. Rashbaum, Jonah E. Bromwich and Ben Protess, The New York Times ; Ethics Panel Cautions Judge in Trump Trial Over Political Donations

"A state ethics panel quietly dismissed a complaint last summer against the New York judge presiding over the criminal trial of Donald J. Trump, issuing a warning over small donations the judge had made to groups supporting Democrats, including the campaign of Joseph R. Biden Jr.

The judge, Juan M. Merchan, donated a total of $35 to the groups in 2020, including a $15 donation earmarked for the Biden campaign, and $10 to a group called “Stop Republicans.”

Political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules...

In its 2024 annual report, the commission said it was made aware of dozens of New York judges who had violated the rules against political contributions in recent years. Most were modest amounts, the report said, and many appeared to stem from the misperception that the rules only apply to state campaigns. In fact, judges are prohibited from contributing to any campaigns, including for federal office."