“Brazenly Partisan” Judges Scrutinize Trump’s Mind, But Refuse To Explain Themselves

Judge James Wynn of the Fourth Circuit was content to have President Biden replace him. But in December 2024, when it became clear Biden’s nominee would not be confirmed,Wynn rescinded his senior status. He offered no actual reason, but we do not have to ignore reality: He didn’t want Trump to replace him. Two other District Court judges made the same decision. Yet the judicial misconduct process refused to acknowledge this reality. I wrote two posts on this issue.

Judge Wynn was the subject of my latest column for Civitas Outlook. Here is an excerpt:

The judges offered no actual explanation for their decision. Judge Wynn, for example, wrote to President Biden that “after careful consideration, I have decided to continue in regular active service.” Upon “careful consideration,” is code for “further election.” Senator Tom Tillis of North Carolina said that Wynn made this “brazenly partisan” decision because he “clearly takes issue with the fact that Donald Trump was just elected President.” The Article III Project filed a judicial misconduct complaint against these three judges. The complaint charged that “Judge Wynn’s decision to rescind his announcement was likely made because of the outcome of the 2024 presidential election.” The group states that Wynn “had a change of heart solely because” Trump won.

Judge Wynn responded to the complaint. He didn’t offer any actual explanation for rescinding his senior status. Wynn insisted that federal law does not prevent him from changing his mind. Rather, he said, “[c]hoices about retirement and senior status are deeply personal and often influenced by multiple factors.” One would think that Wynn could offer some reason to defend his action. But he offered none. Instead, he insisted that he was under no obligation to explain his motivation. Wynn maintained that “no court has ever found it proper to inquire into an Article III judge’s reasons for taking, or not taking, senior status.” Wynn added, “Accusations of partisanship should not be entertained absent specific evidence of misconduct.” If the judge made this decision for some legitimate reason, it would have been straightforward to state it. But he didn’t; instead, he hid behind a legal process.

In October 2025, the misconduct complaints against Judge Wynn, and the other two judges were dismissed. Chief Judge Debra Livingston wrote the opinion in each case. Livingston found “there is no genuine issue of fact.” She added that whether “the Judge considered the outcome of the election as one factor influencing his decision to withdraw the January 5 letter” was “a factual issue I need not resolve.” Had Chief Judge Livingston simply asked Judge Wynn why he rescinded his senior status, the judge could have defended himself with some legitimate reason. But he didn’t offer such a reason, because there is no plausible, legitimate reason. Regrettably, there is a brazen double standard for brazenly partisan judges. The federal courts routinely scrutinized President Trump’s motivations for improper purposes. But when it comes to rooting out judicial misconduct, judges hide behind a veil of ignorance.

And the conclusion:

There is a never-ending stream of faux-outrage about judicial ethics, but these self-professed experts ignore actual problems where judges engage in partisanship. Let’s not forget Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Before the 2016 election, Ginsburg called Trump a “faker” and said she would move to New Zealand if he prevailed. And the day after the election, Justice Ginsburg wore her “dissent” jabot to Court. Ginsburg was clearly protesting Trump’s election. Yet Ginsburg didn’t leave the country, as her retirement would have given Trump the power to appoint her replacement. Ginsburg likely had the same thoughts as Judge Wynn. Fast-forward four years. On Ginsburg’s deathbed, her last words were, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.” Ginsburg said what Wynn clearly thought. Should we just look at Ginsburg’s action behind the veil of ignorance? She was a brazenly partisan critic of Trump, yet she decided a host of cases against Trump while in office. Is there much of a practical difference between what Ginsburg did and what Wynn did?

In recent years, there were routine calls for impeachment when Justice Alito’s wife flew a flag, and Justice Thomas’s wife engaged in politics. Yet when we see progressive judges personally crossing the lines into the political realm, there are only crickets. Here, the judiciary took no action to police political judges — not even a reprimand. Given this failure to acknowledge reality, the only remaining remedy for political judges is the political process. And if those steps are inadequate, further remedies should be on the table.