Judges typically confine their opinions to their rulings. But 2013 was a year of exceptions.
In Nebraska, U.S. District Judge Richard G. Kopf in February launched Hercules and the umpire, a blog that offers a mix of insights on the judicial process, legal news, personal reflections and wisdom. One nugget of advice to young judges: "It's not your job to save the world. Do law, leave justice to Clint Eastwood."
Federal Judge Richard Posner in Chicago takes a self-critical view in his book 'Reflections on Judging.' Reuters
In his latest book, "Reflections on Judging," Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago pleads "guilty" to upholding a voter-identification law "now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression." The passage, picked up by several media outlets, was widely viewed as a mea culpa—a rare instance of a judge saying he got it wrong.
Judges have long been voluble, spirited and even poetic in their rulings. But in the digital age, they also have taken to the media and the Internet to pass judgment on policy and opine on trends.
In the process, the outspoken are butting up against the view held by some that sitting judges shouldn't be seen or heard outside of court. And there is the risk that litigants could try to push certain judges off cases because something they said publicly gave a hint of bias.
"The advice I was given over and over again was to keep your head down," said Nancy Gertner, a law professor at Harvard University and a former federal district judge in Massachusetts who has long advocated for judges to speak up.
A federal appeals court once disqualified Ms. Gertner from a case for telling a reporter that it was "more complex" than a previous matter. She says she had been trying to counter the criticism of a lawyer who accused her of being inconsistent. "I thought I had an obligation to make sure the coverage was accurate," Ms. Gertner said.
Judges are bound by a code of ethics that forbids them from commenting "on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court" and from conduct that would cause someone to question their "independence, integrity, or impartiality." They can expand on criminal-justice policy and discuss their rulings after the fact.
The vast majority of judges—past and present—prefer to limit their public exposure to their rulings. And not all are supportive of more chatter.
"The traditional and classic approach to judging is the court speaks through its opinions," said Richard Holwell, a former federal district judge in Manhattan who stepped down to open a law firm. "My own druthers would say that's the proper way to handle it and that's the proper role of the judiciary."
But the old taboo seemed to take a hit this past year. Judges and legal experts point to several reasons judges may be speaking more freely now: A Supreme Court whose justices are frequently in the public eye, a desire among judges to defend themselves against political attacks and correct the record, and increased media interest in their work.
Russell Wheeler, an expert on the courts at the Brookings Institution, said that while he couldn't be certain of a trend in judicial commentary, it may appear that more judges are speaking up because more people are listening. Even when reporters aren't present to document an appearance by a judge outside the courtroom, a law student with a smartphone probably is. "Things that would have been off the record and stayed that way just don't stay that way anymore," Mr. Wheeler said.
Judge Posner of the Seventh Circuit appeals court said, "Because of the vast expansion of the electronic media there's enormous demand." In his ex-post-facto thoughts on the voter-ID ruling, Judge Posner said he was misunderstood. He meant to say he couldn't be confident he got the ruling right, based on the information before him at the time, not that he got it wrong.
Enlarge Image
cat
U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin was removed from a New York case amid questions that arose due to press coverage. Associated Press
In one high-profile case of a judge's remarks creating problems, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin was removed from a lawsuit challenging the New York Police Department's stop-and-frisk policy in October.
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said her appearance of impartiality had been compromised in the way she acquired the case and in three press interviews she gave, in which she defended her record against insinuations that she disfavors the government. After the Second Circuit removed her, Judge Scheindlin said in a statement that she never discussed the case with reporters, and legal observers have generally defended her comments. The appeals court later softened its tone, clarifying that it found no actual partiality.
Some jurists have found an audience hungry for evidence that judges, like the people who appear before them, are prone to emotion and, occasionally, mistakes.
Judge Kopf, for instance, has been deeply personal on his blog. He has shared with readers his experience with anxiety and depression, as the child of an alcoholic parent, and he is frequently self-critical. Judge Kopf has pronounced his sentencing instincts "sucky." He often comments on legal news, including Judge Scheindlin's removal. Judge Kopf said the Second Circuit "acted like an angry and petulant toddler."
Some judges said they were chagrined by a post Judge Kopf wrote during the partial government shutdown in October. "It's time to tell Congress to go to hell. It's the right thing to do," he wrote. Others rooted him on.
Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp, the head of the federal district court in Nebraska, said she supports Judge Kopf, whose blog she said she reads daily, and praised him for stimulating discussion among judges and lay people. She added that she doesn't always agree with his choice of language.
Judge Smith Camp said some judges were breaking with silence for reasons other than stimulating discussion. "More and more judges," she said, "have become punching bags.
Write to Joe Palazzolo at joe.palazzolo@wsj.com