A judge who is also a member of the National Association of Women Judges can participate in a debate on a resolution for the organization to boycott having meetings in states that have ended discrimination protections based on sexual orientation or gender identity but could have problems continuing as a member depending on the language of the resolution and how it is published.

The Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee recently offered that advice to a judge who is a long-time member of the NAWJ. The judge was concerned about a resolution to be debated at a future association meeting that would have the organization refrain from holding meetings in states that have repealed protections against discrimination based on “sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” or passed laws that allow such discrimination or created exemptions from existing protections to allow such discrimination.

The NAWJ is a civic, bar, or law-related organization devoted to improving the law and legal system, and judges are encouraged to belong to such groups, the JEAC said. However, it can be problematic when such organizations take political positions and since the resolution appears to call for a boycott of some states, that is “a political statement on a current political issue.”