When Judges Chase Fame: The Ethics and Law Behind a Novel‑Writing Bankruptcy Judge

When a Judge Writes a Bestseller: Why It Matters for Lawyers, Students, and Citizens

Hook: If you’ve ever felt that judges’ outside projects make it harder to tell whether a court is being fair, you’re not alone. In January 2026, a short SCOTUStoday item about a bankruptcy judge who also writes novels reminded the public and practitioners that a judge’s off‑bench life can raise real questions about judicial ethics, recusal, and how fame changes public confidence in the judiciary.

"Supreme Court Keeps Novel‑Writing Bankruptcy Judge on ..." — SCOTUStoday, Jan. 16, 2026

This piece uses that SCOTUStoday note as a springboard to explain, in plain language, the law and ethics that control judges’ outside activities, the tests for recusal, and the practical steps litigators, judges, and court watchers can take right now.

What the SCOTUStoday Note Tells Us — and What It Doesn’t

SCOTUStoday's short item flagged a Supreme Court decision to leave a novel‑writing bankruptcy judge on a case. The notification itself is small, but it highlights a large and recurring tension: when a judge pursues public‑facing projects—books, speaking circuits, TV, or active social platforms—do those activities undermine the appearance of impartiality?

SCOTUStoday’s coverage is the prompt; the legal framework that follows is what resolves such questions. Federal law and the judiciary’s own conduct rules already address many of these issues, but recent trends in 2025–2026—amplified social platforms, faster viral news cycles, and bigger cross‑sector deals for public figures—have made the rules harder to apply without careful, case‑by‑case analysis.

Key Legal Authorities — The Short Version

When judges face questions about outside activities or bias, three legal sources typically drive outcomes:

• 28 U.S.C. §455 — a statute requiring that a judge disqualify themselves when their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
• 28 U.S.C. §144 — a statutory procedure that lets a party file an affidavit alleging bias or prejudice and request a different judge.
• Judicial Conduct rules and the Code of Conduct for United States Judges — non‑statutory but highly influential rules setting ethical standards for outside activities, endorsements, and use of judicial prestige.

Two Supreme Court cases frame modern recusal analysis:

• Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) — holds that judicial remarks made in the course of proceedings rarely constitute a valid basis for recusal unless they demonstrate deep‑seated bias from an extrajudicial source.
• Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) — recognizes that extreme campaign‑related financial influence can create a due‑process necessity for recusal; it’s a reminder that structural conflicts may require removal even without proof of actual bias.

Bankruptcy Judges Are Not Exempt

Bankruptcy judges are appointed under Article I and serve limited terms (commonly 14 years). They are subject to the same recusal statutes and to the Judicial Conference’s Code of Conduct. Discipline for bankruptcy judges follows procedures within the judicial‑council system rather than only impeachment, so remedies for improper outside activity differ from those for Article III judges.

What this means in practice

• Bankruptcy judges must follow §455’s text and standards even though their removal mechanics are different.
• Complaints about misconduct can be filed under the Judicial Conduct and Disability Act (28 U.S.C. §§351–364), and the judicial council of the circuit can investigate and act.

The Rules on Outside Activities — Plain Language

Judges are allowed to do many lawful outside activities, including writing books, teaching, and giving speeches. But the rules create guardrails:

• Don’t use the office for private gain. A judge should not exploit the prestige of the bench to sell products, make endorsements, or build a business; recent policy discussions about sponsored content and platform monetization (for example, new models on Bluesky) make the danger easier to imagine.
• Avoid activities that would appear to compromise impartiality. If a judge writes favorably about a company that later appears before the court, the judge may need to recuse.
• Disclose when required. Many jurisdictions require judges to list paid activities or income; transparency reduces surprise and helps litigants evaluate bias claims — see work on responsible data and disclosure practices for ideas about provenance and public notice.

Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct permits extrajudicial activities that do not detract from the dignity of the office or interfere with official duties. But that permission is not unlimited—especially if the activity creates a close financial or personal relationship with a litigant or a litigant’s lawyer.

When Fame Creates a Real Problem

“Celebrity” can mean a judge who has a large public platform—social media followers, a bestseller, TV appearances, or paid speaking engagements. Fame creates three practical problems:

1. Perception of partiality. The public or a litigant might reasonably believe that the judge favors certain viewpoints, parties, or industries connected to their public persona.
2. Actual conflicts. Fame often comes with commercial deals and relationships that may create direct financial conflicts; think of the kinds of distribution deals and marketing arrangements explored in field reviews of distribution and deals.
3. Operational pressures. A high‑profile judge may face crowding of cases involving their public sponsors or be sought after for endorsements, which is problematic.

These are not speculative. In the 2025–2026 period, courts and judicial administrators have reported more public complaints about judges’ paid engagements and media visibility—a trend that has prompted renewed calls to clarify boundaries between permissible public engagement and disqualifying conflicts.

Recusal: How It Really Works (and What Lawyers Should Do)

If you are a lawyer (or an informed party) who believes a judge’s outside activity requires recusal, here’s a practical roadmap to preserve your client’s rights and build a persuasive record.

Step 1 — Early assessment

• Gather facts: what did the judge publish, who paid them, and did that entity appear in your case?
• Ask whether the judge made public statements about the parties or the legal issues in your case.

Step 2 — Timing and the right motion

• Under 28 U.S.C. §144, file an affidavit alleging bias if you can state facts showing personal bias or prejudice; the statute requires timeliness.
• Under 28 U.S.C. §455, file a motion to disqualify or ask the judge to voluntarily recuse, citing the reasonable‑person standard: would a well‑informed person question impartiality?
• Be careful: tardy recusal motions can be denied. File promptly after learning the relevant facts.

Step 3 — Build the record

• Attach public materials: the judge’s promotional materials, social posts, endorsements, book blurbs, and contract summaries (if available).
• Document timing: when did the judge receive compensation or publicity relative to the litigation timeline?

Step 4 — If the judge denies the motion

• Consider immediate preservation of appellate rights: ask the court to note the motion and its denial in the record so you can preserve any right to seek review at the appellate level.
• For bankruptcy matters, consider emergency procedures through the district court or bankruptcy appellate panel depending on the circuit’s rules.

Practical tip: Avoid ad hominem rhetoric in briefs. Courts react poorly to attacks on a judge’s character; stick to facts, statutes, and Supreme Court precedent (Liteky, Caperton).

What Judges Should Do to Avoid Problems

Judges who want a public life can take concrete steps to reduce recusal risk and maintain public confidence.

• Document decisions to accept outside work. Keep a written record showing evaluation under the Code of Conduct.
• Avoid using the judicial title in commercial marketing. A book jacket that loudly promotes “Judge X” creates perception problems.
• Be transparent. When feasible, disclose paid activities early and broadly. Transparency reduces surprise and often prevents litigation over recusal.
• Use robust disclaimers. Make clear that the views expressed in a book or speech are personal and that the judge will follow the law and disqualify as necessary.
• Limit endorsements and endorsements from interested parties. Do not accept paid endorsements from litigants or entities that might appear in your courtroom.

Policymaker & Court Administrator Options — 2026 Trends to Watch

From late 2025 into 2026, courts and the Judicial Conference have been considering updates to guidance about outside activities. The fastest‑moving trends include:

• Clearer guidance on the use of judicial title in marketing and publishers’ promotions.
• Threshold reporting requirements for paid appearances and book advances, especially if those fees exceed set amounts; related discussions about disclosure thresholds map to broader work on paid activity and privacy.
• Model disclosures for judges who write opinionated books or maintain active social media accounts; courts could adopt template language similar to communication templates and prompt templates used elsewhere for consistent public messaging.

Those discussions are ongoing, but if you are a court administrator, consider implementing interim practices: mandatory training on social media, template disclosure language for judges’ publications, and expedited referral procedures for circuits when high‑visibility conflicts arise.

How the Public Should Read the Headlines

Headlines that emphasize a novelty—like a judge who happens to write fiction—can obscure the real legal questions. Not every public‑facing judge must step down from every case. The key legal question is not whether a judge is famous, but whether a reasonable person, informed of the full facts, would doubt the judge’s ability to be impartial.

When the Supreme Court, as reported by SCOTUStoday, left such a judge on a case, its decision did not suggest that judges must avoid all public engagement. Instead, it demonstrates the balancing act courts perform daily—between the right of judges to pursue intellectual and financial freedom and the public’s right to unbiased adjudication.

Concrete Takeaways — Who Should Do What Now

For lawyers and litigants

• Act quickly. If you suspect bias, file promptly under §144 or §455 and attach concrete evidence.
• Preserve appellate record. Note any denial and make sure the trial record reflects your concerns.
• Use restrained, evidence‑based motions — avoid inflammatory claims that distract from the factual record.

For judges

• Consult the Code of Conduct and seek formal advisory opinions when in doubt about a commercial opportunity.
• Prefer transparency—disclose material paid activities to the court’s clerk and consider public notice if activities are high‑profile.
• When recusal might be appropriate, err on the side of caution to protect court legitimacy.

For policymakers and court managers

• Update guidance to reflect 2026 realities: social media, influencer partnerships, and book deals with viral marketing; recent guidance on synthetic media highlights why clear rules matter for platform use.
• Create clear disclosure thresholds for paid activity and advance notice requirements.

Final Observations — The Balance We Need

The law creates a careful balance. Judges are civic actors with rights to speech, work, and creativity. At the same time, the judiciary depends on trust. When a judge’s off‑bench life intersects with the people and issues that flow into their courtroom, the statutes (like §455) and cases (like Liteky and Caperton) guide a fact‑specific inquiry about impartiality.

SCOTUStoday’s item in January 2026 is useful because it reminds us that these questions are not rare. They will grow more frequent as public platforms expand and commercial opportunities increase. The answer is not a blanket ban on public engagement; it is better rules, better disclosure, and better habits—on the bench and in the bar.

Call to Action

If you follow judicial behavior for class, research, or practice, stay informed: subscribe to SCOTUStoday and to our plain‑language explainers at justices.page. If you’re a lawyer dealing with a potential recusal issue, consult appellate counsel early, document the facts, and move promptly. And if you’re a judge considering a public‑facing project, seek an advisory opinion, use clear disclaimers, and keep a contemporaneous record of your decision to accept or decline outside activities.

Want more plain‑language case summaries and ethics explainers about judges, conduct, and recusal standards? Sign up for our newsletter and get concise, citable summaries and toolkits for litigators and scholars.

Related Reading

• How Memorial Tributes Are Used in Sentencing and Judicial Ceremonies — Evolution in 2026
• Regulatory Watch: EU Synthetic Media Guidelines and On‑Device Voice — Implications for Phones (2026)
• Practical Playbook: Responsible Web Data Bridges in 2026 — Lightweight APIs, Consent, and Provenance
• Bluesky’s Cashtags and LIVE Badges: New Opportunities for Creator Monetization
• Bridge Insurance for Early Retirees: Comparing Marketplace, COBRA, and Short-Term Options
• Safety Checklist for Rechargeable Warmers and Microwavable Packs in Your Beauty Routine
• Watch Parties that Heal: Hosting Media Nights for Caregiver Communities
• How CES 2026’s Top Gadgets Could Influence the Next Wave of Gaming Accessories
• DIY Pet Treats the Smart Way: What Craft Syrup Makers Teach Small-Batch Pet Entrepreneurs