Federal law authorizes the chief judge of each federal circuit court of appeals to hold an annual or biennial judicial conference for all of the judges in the circuit (including district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges) “for the purpose of considering the business of the courts and advising means of improving the administration of justice within such circuit.”

You might have thought that the “Glow-Up Flashback Disco” would be the most surprising part of the Fourth Circuit’s upcoming judicial conference. But it’s much more startling to learn that Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick will be giving the “Keynote Address” at the conference.

My point here is not at all to criticize Ifill and Lithwick. It is, rather, to question the puzzling judgment shown by Fourth Circuit judge Roger Gregory.

What conceivable legitimate purpose is there in showcasing as keynote speakers two individuals who, whatever insights they might have on the “business of the courts” and the “administration of justice,” occupy the same hard-Left ideological niche? (From the “breakout sessions” that follow their keynote, it appears that they will be setting the stage for discussions of “Criminal Justice—Threats to Democracy” and “Social Media and Democracy.”)

What’s more, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund regularly files complaints and amicus briefs, including in cases in the Fourth Circuit and in Supreme Court cases arising from lawsuits in federal district courts in the Fourth Circuit. Here, for example, is its amicus brief in the Supreme Court in the pending case of Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. Here is its amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in the pending challenge to the admissions policies of Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology.

Is Chief Judge Gregory oblivious to the implicit endorsement of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund’s legal positions that he is making in honoring Ifill as a keynote speaker? Or is that something he positively welcomes?

Ifill and Lithwick might well be sensible choices as panelists on ideologically diverse panels addressing topics that bear on the “business of the courts” and the “administration of justice.” Indeed, years ago I appeared on a panel with Lithwick on the topic of legal blogging at a judicial conference of the D.C. Circuit. But the ideological bias in having them as keynote speakers should be objectionable to all participating judges.

I have attended four or five circuit judicial conferences (one for the Tenth Circuit, the others for the D.C. Circuit) and have found them to be scrupulously non-ideological. If anyone is aware of any other instances in which a judicial conference has had ideological keynote speakers or other manifest ideological bias, please let me know.