法律专家和保守派正将矛头对准新发布的伦理指南，该指南允许联邦法官就某些问题发声。他们认为，由法院决策机构发布的这份指导意见虚伪且适用不公。
争议的焦点是美国司法会议本月发布的新伦理指导意见。美国司法会议是由最高法院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨以官方身份领导的全国性机构，负责制定联邦法院的政策。
目前尚不清楚罗伯茨本人是否直接参与了该指南的制定，但批评者仍对其进行猛烈抨击。“第三条修正案项目”创始人迈克·戴维斯告诉福克斯新闻数字版，罗伯茨“正在为法院越权提供新的‘司法破坏工具’”。
[image_1]
法官对抗特朗普：阻碍白宫议程的关键法院斗争
[image_2]
司法部长帕姆·邦迪与总统唐纳德·特朗普在白宫简报室就最近的最高法院裁决发表讲话。(盖蒂图片社)
与早期指导意见不同，新的咨询意见指出，法官可以对司法机构进行“有分寸的辩护”，包括驳斥“可能损害司法独立性或法治的非法批评和攻击”，并且“无论这些言论是否构成迫害”都允许这么做。（福克斯新闻数字版查阅的意见副本显示）
该意见还列出了首席大法官罗伯茨在其2024年年终报告中确定的四类非法行为，包括“威胁法官自身”或“威胁法治”的行为：“暴力、胁迫、虚假信息以及公然违抗法院命令的威胁。”
报告强调：“但这并不意味着任何涉及法律或法律体系的行为都被视为合法行为。”
新指南出台之际，正值特朗普抨击所谓“ rogue（ rogue此处指‘不循常规’或‘越权’）”或“激进”法官在他第二任期内暂停或阻止了一些他的重大政策优先事项生效。
联邦数据显示，与前12个月相比，针对联邦法官的威胁在2025年急剧增加，其中包括针对法官及其家人的网络骚扰、人身暴力威胁和“人肉搜索”事件。
有争议的指南似乎试图为法官提供一个论坛，以消除针对他们的一些批评。
[image_3]
前法官抨击特朗普司法部高官将“战争”宣言对准法院
[image_4]
华盛顿特区联邦地区法院首席法官詹姆斯·E·博斯伯格法官于2023年3月16日在华盛顿特区E.巴雷特·普雷蒂曼联邦法院拍摄肖像。(华盛顿邮报通过盖蒂图片社)
然而，该指南也引发了特朗普盟友、保守派评论员和法院观察人士的新反弹。他们认为，该指南被不公平地用来保护某些司法机构成员。
南德克萨斯法学院宪法学教授乔什·布莱克曼在采访中表示：“关于新指南，首先要注意的是它的时机。”
“这显然是对保守派对自由派法官批评的回应，”布莱克曼说，“在过去四年里，我们并没有看到太多这样的情况，当时保守派法官面临的是常规的死亡威胁。”
他补充说，这个时机“有点不幸，因为这给人一种只有某些批评才值得回应的感觉。”
戴维斯的批评更为尖锐。他在一份声明中谴责该伦理指南“破坏了民选总统行使核心第二条宪法权力的行为”，并认为这是联邦司法机构越权的又一个例子。
“温馨提示：当联邦法官脱下法袍，进入政治舞台，挥舞政治拳头时，他们应该预料到来自政治方面的强力反击，”戴维斯说。
[image_5]
联邦法官猛烈抨击特朗普驱逐亲巴勒斯坦抗议者的努力
[image_6]
白宫顾问斯蒂芬·米勒和最高法院首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨的并排拼接照片。(盖蒂图片社)
此前，数十名前法官对特朗普政府针对联邦法院法官的言论表示担忧。他们在接受福克斯新闻数字版采访时形容这些言论“不必要地煽动性”，并认为这是“火上浇油”。
新指南还强调，法官“应避免耸人听闻的表述”和可能“导致对司法职能产生混淆或误解”或“有损法官职位尊严”的评论。
此前，已有数名法官因在法庭上越权履职或发表公开政治言论而受到正式批评。
点击此处获取福克斯新闻应用
最高法院去年谴责美国地区法官威廉·杨（里根任命），因其在多次意见中抨击特朗普是“恶霸”，并称其“一心复仇”，未能尊重总司令。
他还指责政府存在“种族歧视”和“对LGBTQ群体的歧视”，并在一项命令中质问：“我们还有羞耻心吗？”
布雷恩·德皮施是福克斯新闻数字版的全国政治记者，专注于报道特朗普政府，特别是司法部、联邦调查局和其他全国性新闻。她曾在《华盛顿 examiner》和《华盛顿邮报》报道过全国性政治新闻，还为《政治杂志》、《科罗拉多公报》等媒体撰稿。您可以通过Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com向布雷恩提供线索，或在X平台关注她：@breanne_dep。
Legal experts and conservatives are taking aim at newly published ethics guidelines that allow federal judges to speak out on certain issues, arguing the guidance issued by the court’s policy-making body is hypocritical and has been unfairly applied.
At issue is new ethics guidance published this month by the U.S. Judicial Conference, the national body led by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in his official capacity and tasked with setting policy for the federal courts.
It is unclear whether Roberts himself was directly involved in the guidance, but critics assailed it all the same. Article III Project founder Mike Davis told Fox News Digital that Roberts is “giving judicial saboteurs new tools” for the courts to overstep.
[image_1]
JUDGES V TRUMP: HERE ARE THE KEY COURT BATTLES HALTING THE WHITE HOUSE AGENDA
[image_2]
Attorney General Pam Bondi speaks alongside President Donald Trump on recent Supreme Court rulings in the briefing room at the White House.(Getty Images)
In a departure from earlier guidance, the new advisory opinion states that judges may engage in a “measured defense” of the judiciary, including defending against “illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks” that risk “undermining judicial independence or the rule of law,” and doing so “regardless of whether these comments rise to the level of persecution,” according to a copy of the opinion reviewed by Fox News Digital.
It goes on to list four areas of illegitimate activity identified by Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 year-end report, including activities that “either threaten the judges themselves” or threaten the rule of law: “Violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy court orders.”
“It does not follow, however, that every activity that involves the law or the legal system is considered permissible activity,” the report said.
The new guidance comes as Trump has assailed so-called “rogue” or “activist” judges who have paused or blocked some of his biggest policy priorities from taking effect during his second term as president.
It also comes as threats against federal judges saw a sharp uptick in 2025 compared to the previous 12-month period, according to federal data, including increases in online harassment, threats of physical violence and “doxxing” incidents targeting judges and their families.
The guidance in question seemingly attempts to give judges a forum to dispel some of the criticism against them.
[image_3]
EX-JUDGES BLAST TOP TRUMP DOJ OFFICIAL FOR DECLARING ‘WAR’ ON COURTS
[image_4]
Judge James E. Boasberg, chief judge of the Federal District Court in D.C., stands for a portrait at the E. Barrett Prettyman Federal Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on March 16, 2023.(Washington Post via Getty)
But it also invited fresh backlash from Trump allies, conservative commentators and court watchers, who argued the guidance is being unfairly applied to protect certain members of the judiciary.
“The first thing to note” about the new guidance is its timing, said Josh Blackman, a constitutional law professor at the South Texas College of Law, in an interview.
“It is clearly a response to conservative criticism of liberal judges,” Blackman said. “We didn’t see much of this in the last four years, [when] there were routine death threats against conservative judges.”
The timing, he added, “is a bit unfortunate, because it gives a sense that only [certain] criticisms warrant a response.”
Davis went further. In a statement, he railed against the ethics guidance as “sabotaging the exercise of core Article II powers of the duly-elected president,” and another example in which he argued the federal judiciary has overstepped its powers.
“Friendly reminder: when federal judges take off their judicial robes, climb into the political arena, and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches,” Davis said.
[image_5]
FEDERAL JUDGE LAUNCHES SCATHING BROADSIDE OF TRUMP’S EFFORTS TO DEPORT PRO-PALESTINIAN PROTESTERS
[image_6]
White House adviser Stephen Miller and Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts are seen in a side-by-side split image.(Getty Images)
The opinion comes as dozens of former judges have voiced concern over the Trump administration’s rhetoric towards the federal court judges, describing them in a series of interviews with Fox News Digital as unnecessarily inflammatory and amounting to “pouring oil” on an already fast-burning fire.
The new guidance also stressed that judges “should avoid sensationalism” and commentary that “may result in confusion or misunderstanding of the judicial function or detract from the dignity of the office.”
The news comes as several judges have been criticized formally for overstepping their duties on the bench, and for otherwise making overtly political comments.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Supreme Court last year condemned U.S. District Judge William Young, a Reagan appointee, for failing to respect the commander-in-chief in repeated opinions that assailed Trump as a bully, and as being laser-focused on “retribution.”
He has also accused the administration of “racial discrimination” and “discrimination against the LGBTQ community,” and asked in one order, “Have we no shame?”
Breanne Deppisch is a national politics reporter for Fox News Digital covering the Trump administration, with a focus on the Justice Department, FBI and other national news. She previously covered national politics at the Washington Examiner and The Washington Post, with additional bylines in Politico Magazine, the Colorado Gazette and others. You can send tips to Breanne at Breanne.Deppisch@fox.com, or follow her on X at @breanne_dep.