Court says judge's Facebook friendship created conflict

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that a judge’s decision to become Facebook friends with a woman whose child custody case he was hearing created at least the appearance of bias, upholding a lower court's order that the case be re-heard by another judge.

The ruling was the first of its kind in Wisconsin and the latest in a series of examples across the country where a judge's actions on social media call into question their ability to fairly consider cases before them. States have taken a variety of approaches toward addressing the intersection of judicial conduct and social media, with some laying down strict rules against it and others being more liberal.

In Tuesday's ruling, the court determined that “the extreme facts of this case rebut the presumption of judicial impartiality,” a due process violation. Justice Annette Ziegler also used the case to “strongly urge” Wisconsin judges to "weigh the advantages and disadvantages of using electronic social media like Facebook.”

“I am concerned that no matter how cautious and attentive the judge may be, a judge who uses electronic social media may expose both the judge and the judiciary as a whole to an appearance of bias or impropriety,” she wrote as part of the 4-3 majority.

But Justice Brian Hagedorn, in a dissent, said even though the case involves social media, “an area comparatively unexplored in judicial ethics circles,” the facts are rather ordinary and the judge's actions did not violate the due process rights of the father as he fought for custody rights. There's not enough evidence to show whether the Facebook friendship unfairly influenced the judge, Hagedorn said.

“Judges are people too,” Hagedorn wrote. “The very concept of an impartial judiciary depends upon the belief that judges can manage...