JI-158

August 1, 2025

SYLLABUS

A judicial officer may be a member of a fraternal or advocacy organization, including the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), so long as such membership does not create an appearance of bias, undermine public confidence in judicial impartiality, or otherwise conflict with the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct.

Judges must be particularly cautious when joining organizations that advocate for specific legal or political interests, especially if those interests frequently come before the court.

References: MCJC 2(A), 2(B), and 2(F).

OPINION

Relevant Judicial Canons

CANON 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.

A. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly.

B. A judge should respect and observe the law. At all times, the conduct and manner of a judge should promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

...

F. A judge should not allow activity as a member of an organization to cast doubt on the judge’s ability to perform the function of the office in a manner consistent with the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct, the laws of this state, and the Michigan and United States Constitutions. A judge should be particularly cautious with regard to membership activities that discriminate, or appear to discriminate, on the basis of race, gender, or other protected personal characteristics. Nothing in this paragraph should be interpreted to diminish a judge’s right to the free exercise of religion.

Background

The Judicial Tenure Commission (JTC) brought this ethics inquiry to the Committee concerning the propriety of certain judicial memberships under the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct. The JTC presented a situation involving a district court judge who is a member of the FOP, an organization comprised largely of law enforcement officers—many of whom appear before the judge in court. The JTC sought the Committee’s guidance as to whether such membership constitutes a violation of Canon 2(A), prohibiting the appearance of impropriety; Canon 2(B), cautioning against conduct that may erode public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality; or Canon 2(F), limiting a judge’s involvement in certain types of organizations. The JTC’s concern centers on whether the judge’s affiliation with a law enforcement group might reasonably call into question the judge’s neutrality in matters involving police testimony or interests.

If FOP membership is inappropriate for a district court judge who frequently presides over cases involving law enforcement, is the same true for a circuit judge whose docket consists primarily of civil matters and who rarely presides over criminal matters, or an appellate judge who reviews such cases only from a distance? And what of other advocacy organizations? How should judicial membership in advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood or Right to Life be evaluated when abortion-related cases arise? Is it permissible for a judge to belong to a domestic violence prevention organization while regularly hearing domestic violence cases?

ANALYSIS

Membership in the FOP

The FOP is the largest organization of sworn law enforcement officers in the world. The FOP’s mission is to support and advocate for the interests, well-being, and professional needs of law enforcement officers. Any full-time, sworn law enforcement officer with arrest power employed by a government entity may become a member. Local lodges each have their own unique requirements regarding membership in the FOP for retired law enforcement officers.

Appearance of Impropriety

Under the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Canon 2(A) and 2(B), judges are required to avoid the appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. When a judge is a member of an advocacy organization like the FOP and that judge regularly presides over cases involving police testimony or interests, the appearance of impropriety is heightened. Frequently presiding over matters in which police officers are witnesses or have other interests creates the risk that such membership could undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s fairness and objectivity, thereby implicating Canon 2(B).

The analysis becomes even more nuanced in courts where law enforcement officers do not regularly appear before the judge. In Courts of Appeal, for example, police officers likely do not regularly appear, but the outcomes of cases may still directly concern law enforcement interests. In specialized courts like administrative tribunals or business courts, where police are even less likely to be involved, the appearance of impropriety arising from FOP membership is arguably minimal or nonexistent.

Judges are encouraged to remain connected to their communities, and membership in civic, religious, or charitable organizations is often part of that engagement. What distinguishes FOP membership is its direct alignment with advocacy for a group with frequent and significant courtroom presence, particularly in trial courts. Therefore, the context and frequency of police interaction in the judge’s courtroom are made more relevant to the appearance-of-impropriety and public faith in judicial impartiality analysis. A tailored approach focused on the nature of the judge’s docket offers a balanced way to protect both judicial integrity and the judge’s own right.

Membership in Other Advocacy Organizations

Membership in other advocacy organizations that take strong policy or political positions—such as Planned Parenthood, Right to Life, or public safety advocacy groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving or Moms Demand Action—raises similar concerns. When a judge aligns with an organization that advocates strongly for or against issues that may come before the court, there is a risk that the judge’s impartiality—or the public perception of it—could be compromised.

Canon 2(F) states that judges should be cautious with regard to membership in organizations that engage in discriminatory practices, and that a judge should not allow activity as a member of an organization to cast doubt on the judge’s ability to perform the functions of the office in a manner consistent with the Code of Judicial Conduct and all applicable laws.

Accordingly, if an organization takes aggressive public stances on controversial legal or political issues—particularly those that are likely to come before the judge—membership could trigger Canon 2(F) or Canon 2(B). For instance, membership in an organization like the FOP, Planned Parenthood, or Moms Demand Action, depending on the judge’s role could undermine public confidence in the judge’s neutrality. In short, Canon 2(F) serves as a reminder that judges must be cautious in their affiliations—not only to avoid actual bias or impropriety but to uphold the integrity, independence, and public trust essential to the judicial role. It is important to note, however, that “[a] judge may serve as a member, officer or director of an organization or governmental agency devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice and in that capacity or otherwise may make recommendations to the organization or agency on projects or programs of the organization or agency.”¹

Ultimately, a judge must weigh all relevant factors, and when there is a reasonable likelihood that organizational affiliation could cast doubt on a judge’s impartiality, recusal, disclosure²,  or reconsideration of the affiliation may be warranted. Some relevant factors to be considered are included below.

Factors for Evaluating Ethical Concerns in Organizational Membership

• Whether the organization takes public stances on legal issues that could come before the judge.³
• The frequency with which those issues come before the court.⁴
• The extent of the judge’s involvement (e.g., general membership vs. leadership role).⁵
• Whether membership creates an obligation to support the organization’s positions.
• Whether the organization participates in advocacy for specific legal or political interests, especially if those interests frequently come before the court, and the nature of those advocacy efforts.

Guidelines for Recusal and Disclosure

When potential conflicts arise, judges should consider whether recusal is necessary under the Michigan Code of Judicial Conduct and MCR 2.003. If a judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of an organizational affiliation, recusal may be the appropriate course of action. Even where recusal is not indicated, disclosure of the affiliation may be necessary when the issues advocated by the organization, or the organization itself, are relevant to a matter before the court. Disclosure helps maintain transparency and can allow parties the opportunity to raise concerns or request recusal if warranted.

These considerations apply even in courts where such issues arise only occasionally or indirectly. Disclosure and careful case-by-case evaluation remain critical tools to uphold public confidence in the fairness, independence, and integrity of the judiciary.

CONCLUSION

Judges are not categorically prohibited from joining organizations, but they must carefully assess whether their membership aligns with their duty to be and appear to be fair, independent, and impartial. Judges should consider the nature of the organization, its advocacy efforts, and whether membership may necessitate recusal in certain cases. To uphold the integrity of the judiciary, judges should exercise caution in affiliating with organizations that take public positions on legal or political issues and should be prepared to withdraw from any group if membership compromises their ethical obligations.

1. Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-140.

2. See Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-51 (“A judge serving on the board of directors of a nonprofit legal aid organization is required to disclose the relationship when one of the parties appearing before the judge is represented by a lawyer from the legal aid organization.”). If a judge will be referring services, they should avoid referring services to organizations they sit on the board of, as doing so may create the appearance of impropriety.

3. See Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-139 (“A judge may not serve as an officer, director, trustee, or nonlegal advisor of a charitable or non-profit organization if the organization is regularly engaged in adversary proceedings before any court or is likely to be engaged in proceedings that would ordinarily come before the particular judge. Engaged in proceedings includes, but is not limited to, providing testimony or documentary evidence to the court or participating in case status conferences in certain types of cases on a regular basis.”)

4. See Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-19.

5. See Michigan Ethics Opinion JI-38.