My column today in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Bruce Ledewitz: Federal judges should not make political speeches in private
Got a news tip? 412-263-1601
Dec 1, 2025
9:22 AM
Should a Federal Judge speak where the press is barred? The Pittsburgh Lawyer Chapter of the Federalist Society is holding an event today that is “closed to the press.” The title of the event is “In Support of Constitutionalism” and the featured speaker is District Judge William Stickman IV of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
There is nothing unlawful about this. The organization is no more obligated to admit the press to their meeting than you are to let reporters into your own home.
However, the question remains: in a constitutional democracy, don’t the people have a right to know what a federal judge is saying about the Constitution? How can they find out what a judge says if the press is barred?
Private and legal
The Federalist Society is a private organization dedicated to the promotion of freedom, the separation of government powers and a judiciary that enforces the law rather than enforcing what the law should be. Because it is private, it is not bound by the First Amendment’s Freedom of the Press.
Nor is the Federalist Society literally trying to hide anything. Non-members willing to pay the $30 for a ticket can attend this event and, I am sure, take any notes they like. I am not, strictly speaking, a member of the press. If I attended, knowing the press was barred, I would be bound not to write about the event in the Post-Gazette.
Judge Stickman is also not doing anything unlawful. He is a very well-respected judge — an eminent graduate of the law school at Duquesne University, where I taught for 45 years.
He may not be aware that the event is closed to the press. If he is aware, he undoubtedly checked to see if his attendance would violate any judicial ethical norm. I consulted an expert who agreed that this speaking engagement is probably not a violation.
Federal judges do not forfeit their privacy upon ascending to the bench. If this were a closed family funeral, no one would think the press had a right to hear Judge Stickman deliver the eulogy.
But this event is neither private nor apolitical.
The Federalist Society is strictly non-partisan. The organization does not endorse candidates for political office.
But this non-partisanship is pure show.
Private and political
The Federalist Society is actually deeply enmeshed in the politics of the Trump administration. The acceptance of Donald Trump by members and the leadership of The Federalist Society in 2016 was a major factor in Trump’s winning over skeptical conservatives.
In return, Trump promised to appoint judges to the federal bench who were “all picked by the Federalist Society.” He also released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during his campaign, including many individuals who were affiliated with the organization.
And Trump delivered on his promises. The Supreme Court is now dominated by conservatives because Trump’s three appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Barrett — are all affiliated with The Federalist Society. In 2021, Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman released an audiobook about the Federalist Society entitled, accurately enough, “Takeover: How a Conservative Student Club Captured the Supreme Court.”
This bargain in which the Federalist Society refrains from criticizing Trump in return for influence in selecting federal judges even has a name. Whenever a conservative is unhappy with the actions of the Trump Administration, the reassuring answer always is, “But Gorsuch … .” That is, Trump has his flaws, but he gave us the Court by appointing Gorsuch and two more conservatives.
In fact, it may be those ties to the Trump administration that led to closing the Pittsburgh event. I have attended many Federalist Society events over the years. I don’t remember that they were closed to the press.
But on Nov. 7, at the annual Federalist Society Convention, U.S. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche described the Trump administration as being at “war” with the federal judiciary and invited lawyers to “join the fight” against “activist judges” who were blocking the Trump agenda.
The resulting controversy was no doubt deeply embarrassing to everyone involved.
It is unlikely that Judge Stickman will say anything at the Pittsburgh event remotely comparable or controversial. Nevertheless, the proper approach to interpreting the Constitution is a highly contested and deeply political issue in our constitutional democracy.
If a federal judge is willing to share his understanding of these issues, it is important that the people are able to hear him.
Private and public
Politicians speak in places without press access all the time. They make promises that they would not want the public to know about. They hold confidential discussions the publication of which would harm American interests.
But judges are not politicians. They speak in confidence to each other only on the way to deciding a case. And we get to read their final opinions. Judges have no right to share their views on the law with others outside the hearing of the public.
The press is both our watchdog and our lookout. The press should be the ones to decide when we need to know what a federal judge has to say. Not The Federalist Society.
Bruce Ledewitz is professor of law emeritus at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University and a contributing writer for the Post-Gazette. He writes every other Monday. His previous article was “Democrats: Call Trump’s bluff on investigating the 2020 election.”
First Published: December 1, 2025, 9:22 a.m.
0 Comments