Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor faced a judicial misconduct ruling after publishing an essay in The New York Times criticizing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. In the May 24, 2024, essay, Ponsor condemned Alito for allowing provocative flags, including an upside-down American flag, to be displayed outside his homes. The flags resembled those used by some supporters of President-elect Donald Trump during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
Essay Triggers Ethics Complaint
Ponsor, a Clinton appointee based in Springfield, Massachusetts, described the flag display as “improper” and “dumb.” His comments followed New York Times reports detailing the flags at Alito’s Virginia residence and New Jersey vacation home.
The essay led the Article III Project, a conservative advocacy group headed by Trump ally Mike Davis, to file a misconduct complaint. The group alleged that Ponsor’s critique violated judicial ethics rules.
Ethics Violation Confirmed
The case was reassigned to Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz of the 4th Circuit Judicial Council in Richmond, Virginia. In a Dec. 10 order made public Tuesday, Diaz concluded that Ponsor’s essay undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity.
Diaz, an Obama appointee, pointed to the essay’s “political implications and undertones.” He explained that the essay violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by publicly commenting on issues related to ongoing cases, even though Ponsor did not reference any specific litigation.
The timing of Ponsor’s essay raised concerns. It coincided with Democratic calls for Justice Alito to recuse himself from two cases involving the Jan. 6 riot. Alito ultimately declined to recuse, including in a Supreme Court case concerning Trump’s bid for immunity from prosecution.
Diaz wrote, “It would be reasonable for a member of the public to perceive the essay as a commentary on partisan issues and as a call for Justice Alito’s recusal.”
Ponsor Apologizes and Pledges to Avoid Future Missteps
In a Nov. 20 letter attached to Diaz’s order, Ponsor apologized, acknowledging his actions violated judicial ethics. He admitted, “The fact that I did not have any particular case in mind when I drafted the piece does not reduce the gravity of my lapse.”
Ponsor, who has also written mystery novels, pledged to seek guidance from judicial ethics panels before publishing nonjudicial writings in the future.
Mike Davis, of the Article III Project, accepted Ponsor’s apology. “The courts and Judge Ponsor took this seriously,” Davis said in a statement. “I accept his apology letter at face value.”
Moving Forward
This incident highlights the delicate balance judges must maintain when engaging in public discourse. The ruling reinforces the judiciary’s ethical standards and serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining impartiality in all public communications.
