Why don’t judges respond to public criticism—or speak out on controversial cases? This engaging series explores the complex world of judicial speech and the ethical boundaries that protect the courts’ neutrality and public trust. Participants will examine real case studies such as Caperton, Williams-Yulee, and Republican Party of Minnesota, and analyze scenarios where judicial speech may raise ethical concerns. Topics include judicial independence, integrity, and accountability; codes of judicial conduct; judicial speech during campaigns; responses to public criticism; comments on pending cases; partisan speech; and the role of judges in public commentary, teaching, and educational settings. Sessions will be presented in a flexible format—there is no set order, and some topics may be combined. Gain insight into how judges preserve impartiality while upholding democratic values.

**No class April 2nd**