Milwaukee federal judge admonished for article about U.S. Supreme Court

Glad to see Lynn Adelman get a formal and public smack down from the 7th Circuit for his vicious and uncalled for attack on the Chief Justice in a law journal article.

Hopefully Lynn Adelman will stop his opining regarding the Supreme Court completely. Stick to managing your caseload.

Adelman remains in active status as a United States District Judge at 80 years of age. I would not be surprised to see him take senior status should Biden win in November.

Well, he’s not wrong. The Robert’s court has made it easier to gain access to government if you are rich thru campaign contributions (citizens united) and more difficult to vote if you are a minority in the south. (VRA)

Don’t worry though. We have another 30 to 40 years of Roberts on the Bench.

How can you condone the abuses of power exhibited by Justice Roberts, in addition to other Justices, who have ignored their oath of office, perverted the meaning of our Constitution, and imposed their personal sense fairness, justice and reasonableness as the rule of law?

Why have a written constitution agreed to by the people, if those entrusted to enforce its defined and limited grants of powers are free subvert what the people have agreed to?


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

1 Like

I have not read what his positions are or what he is critical about…but…I don’t see that you should lose your right to free speech because you disagree with the positions of a court.
If he refused to follow their decrees that would be different, but to state that he disagrees with them or thinks they are too (whatever), I think he should be able to voice that.
Now maybe in active cases that he is involved in, that could be different.

Roberts and his failings are not at issue here.

Lynn Adelman is the subject of this thread.

When a Federal Judge (or State Judge for that matter) takes office, he indeed gives up certain rights in the name of judicial objectivity. These prohibitions are laid out in the Judicial Canons that every Federal Judge must abide by. Federal Judges cannot endorse or oppose candidates for office, they can’t advocate for or against legislation, except in very limited circumstances. They are not supposed to broadly opine on specific issues of the day, since they could become before their court

Adelman has fulfilled the requirements of the Rule of 80 and could retire on full salary anytime he wishes. If he retires, he regains his full right of expression.

But as long as he remains a Federal Judge, he must abide by the unique sacrifice of the right of expression required of all Federal Judges.

Stop sucking up to Supreme Court usurpers! You should be better than that.


The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47


Lynn Adelman seems to think so.


As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas