ACLJ Defends Free Speech Rights of West Virginia Judge – Your Constitutional Freedoms Are Also at Stake

When a West Virginia judge spoke out about failures in the state’s child welfare system, she never imagined she’d face professional discipline for exercising her First Amendment rights. But that’s exactly what happened – and the ACLJ is stepping in to defend not just Judge Maryclaire Akers, but also the constitutional freedoms of every American.

The ACLJ just filed a critical amicus brief in this case, and what happens here could impact freedom of speech across the country.

Here’s what happened: In February, Judge Akers spoke cautiously in an interview about the state foster care system, limiting her remarks to what was already in a public court order and what had been said in an open courtroom hearing. She revealed no confidential information. She simply spoke about the cyclical failures in the foster care system and how children in foster care too often end up in the juvenile justice system.

For trying to shine a light on a broken system that was failing West Virginia’s most vulnerable children, the Judicial Investigation Commission admonished her, claiming she violated judicial conduct rules by speaking to the media about “pending matters.”

Think about that for a moment: A judge who sees problems in how the government protects abused and neglected children – and speaks up about it – is being punished for her speech.

This is exactly the kind of governmental overreach the First Amendment was designed to prevent.

The Constitutional Crisis We’re Fighting

The ACLJ’s brief makes a powerful argument grounded in Supreme Court precedent, particularly the landmark case Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada. That decision established clear constitutional limits on how states can restrict the speech of legal professionals.

The principle is straightforward: Professional licensing doesn’t create a constitutional vacuum where the government can silence speech it finds inconvenient or uncomfortable. Professional speech restrictions must satisfy rigorous First Amendment scrutiny – they can only be applied when there’s “a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing” legal proceedings.

Judge Akers’ carefully circumscribed comments about systemic problems posed no such threat. She was informing the public about governmental accountability on matters of paramount public concern.

This isn’t our first battle against state boards that abuse their power to suppress constitutional rights. We won a major victory against the Virginia Real Estate Board, which had targeted a Christian realtor for including “Jesus Loves You” and Bible verses in her email signature and website. The West Virginia case follows the same troubling pattern: a state board using vague rules to punish speech it doesn’t like, without any actual evidence of harm.

The Bigger Picture: Your Rights Are Connected

What’s at stake at the heart of this case is whether the government can use professional conduct rules as a weapon to silence criticism and suppress inconvenient truths.

Think about the precedent this sets. If Judge Akers can be disciplined for speaking about systemic problems she witnessed firsthand, then attorneys could be punished for discussing failures in the justice system. Government employees could face retaliation for whistleblowing about waste, fraud, or abuse. Doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers – professionals across every field who witness governmental failures – could be silenced through vague professional conduct rules wielded as weapons against truth-telling.

The First Amendment doesn’t protect only speech that the government approves of. It especially protects speech that challenges the government, questions authority, and demands accountability. That’s not a bug in our constitutional system – it’s the entire point. The Founders understood that the government will always be tempted to silence its critics, which is precisely why they made freedom of speech our First Amendment right. And it’s why we’re fighting to defend it in court.