Sixth Circuit Slashes Judicial Ethics Rules Against Judge's 'Campaign Speech'

LitNews.ai Staff · April 1, 2026 · Sixth Circuit

Panel: Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge White, Circuit Judge Murphy · Opinion by: Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons

The Sixth Circuit on Monday reversed a Kentucky federal judge's decision denying injunctive relief to a sitting district judge, ruling that the state Judicial Conduct Commission could not constitutionally enforce ethics rules against statements that were 'readily capable of a true interpretation.'

Kentucky District Judge Donna Greenwell Dutton sued the state Judicial Conduct Commission after it proposed sanctioning her for statements she made to The Sentinel-News during her 2022 reelection campaign about a previous disciplinary issue involving her accusations that an attorney stole money from her husband's law firm. The JCC claimed Dutton violated three judicial ethics rules by making false statements about the theft, the attorney's relationship with her opponent, and whether litigants were harmed by her prior misconduct.

Writing for a unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Julia Smith Gibbons found that the JCC's enforcement attempts violated Dutton's First Amendment rights because her statements were protected speech. 'The JCC cannot enforce Rule 4.1(A)(11) against Dutton for stating that the lawyers practiced law together because the record reflects that the statement was 'readily capable of a true interpretation,' as the JCC has advanced insufficient evidence of falsity,' Gibbons wrote. The court applied strict scrutiny review, finding that restrictions on judicial campaign speech are content-based and presumptively invalid unless narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests.

The case arose after Dutton was previously disciplined in 2020 for making inappropriate comments during a bench conference in Commonwealth v. Carter, where she accused defense counsel Cole Tomlinson of stealing from her husband's firm. When asked about this controversy during her 2022 campaign, Dutton told the newspaper that the issue 'involved the theft of a large sum of money by an attorney who also happens to practice law with my opponent' and that 'no litigants were affected by my actions.' The JCC sent Dutton a warning letter and proposed public reprimand, leading to her federal lawsuit.

The ruling expands First Amendment protections for judicial candidates and clarifies that ethics enforcers cannot sidestep constitutional limits by applying multiple rules to the same protected speech. The decision comes as courts nationwide grapple with balancing judicial ethics enforcement against campaign speech rights, with the Supreme Court previously recognizing in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that judicial candidates have First Amendment rights to speak in support of their campaigns.

Counsel

Judge Dutton is represented by Christopher Wiest of Chris Wiest, Atty At Law, PLLC and Thomas B. Bruns of Bruns Connell Vollmar & Armstrong.

The Judicial Conduct Commission is represented by Olivia F. Amlung and Jeffrey C. Mando of Adams Law, PLLC.

Case: The case is Hon. Donna Greenwell Dutton v. Jimmy Shaffer, et al., case numbers 25-5352/5391, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Court

Sixth Circuit

Case Name

Donna Dutton v. Jimmy Shaffer

Docket

25-5391