Judicial Ethics

Eugene Volokh | 1.8.2026 2:02 PM

The Missouri Commission on Retirement, Removal, and Discipline of Judges charged Judge Matthew Thornhill with misconduct:

That Respondent engaged in a course of conduct in which he was involved in political activity not related to the law, legal system, or the administration of justice and/or was related to his own political campaign from the bench in the courtroom while conducting the business of the court and/or around the courthouse in one or more of the following ways:

That such conduct is violative of Supreme Court Rule 2-1.2, requiring a judge to promote confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; Supreme Court Rule 2-2.1, requiring a judge give precedence to the duties of office; Supreme Court Rule 2-2.3, requiring a judge to avoid bias in performing judicial duties; Supreme Court Rule 2-2.4, requiring a judge not allow political relationships to influence judicial conduct; Supreme Court Rule 2-2.8, requiring a judge maintain order and decorum in proceedings before the court and to be dignified and courteous with litigants, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity; Supreme Court Rule 2-4.1 (D), requiring that a judge not engage in any other political activity except on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; and Supreme Court Rule 2-4.2, for failing to maintain dignity appropriate to judicial office while campaigning. Further, such conduct is misconduct and/or incompetency pursuant to [a]rticle V[, s]ection 24 of the Constitution of the State of Missouri.

The Missouri Supreme Court agreed, in an opinion (In re: Thornhill) by Judge Paul Wilson:

Canon 4 of the Code of........

© Reason.com