May a judge belong to lodges that appear to exclude women from membership?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ask about yours and see what the current rules of professional conduct in your state say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A judge belonged to local lodges of broader organizations and knew of no women members, although each had a women’s auxiliary. The Committee said it could not investigate the organizations and would not identify or decide their specific facts.
Under former Canon 2C, the judge had to determine whether any membership exclusion was arbitrary and based on race, sex, religion, or national origin. If so, the organization practiced invidious discrimination and judicial membership violated the Canon.
The opinion said separate women’s auxiliaries could stigmatize women. A separate concurrence agreed with the result and discussed additional factors, but did not turn the majority’s conditional conclusion into a finding about the unnamed lodges.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before Nebraska's adoption of the 2011 Revised Code of Judicial Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement.
Common questions
Q: Did the Committee determine that the named lodges violated Canon 2C?
A: No. It said it could not investigate their facts and left the determination to the judge.
Q: When would membership violate the opinion’s rule?
A: If an organization arbitrarily excluded people on the listed protected grounds and practiced invidious discrimination.
Q: Did women’s auxiliaries settle the issue?
A: No. The Committee said such auxiliaries could be patronizing and stigmatizing.
Background and rules framework
The majority applied former Nebraska Canon 2C and its commentary on membership in organizations practicing invidious discrimination. It stated that Opinion 91-2 predated the then-current Code and should be read accordingly.
Citations and references
Former Nebraska Code of Judicial Conduct: Canon 2C. Earlier opinion discussed: Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 91-2.
See also
No sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: Nebraska Judicial Ethics Committee opinions
- Original PDF: Opinion 93-2
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1993. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace