Judicial Jests: Should Judges Be Funny?

By Maria Wilkins. 

When asked to picture a judge, one might imagine a stoic arbiter, clad in severe black robes and presiding over their courtroom with an unflinching commitment to decorum and tradition. This image often plays out in judicial opinions, which are typically—and appropriately—serious, buttoned-up prose. 

It may come as a surprise, then, that judges often inject humor into their courtrooms and writing. But should judges be funny? While humor can make judges feel more human and accessible, it also presents certain risks. The line between humor and harm often comes down to context, tone, and the stakes of the case.

Judicial Jests Throughout History

From puns and parodies to poetry and pop culture, judges have injected humor into their writing for centuries. 

The numbers show that judges have an affinity for one of the most iconic comedians of all time: Shakespeare. Over 800 citations in federal and state opinions are attributed to Shakespeare. For example, while considering the applicability of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) in a proceeding, a federal judge opined, “Whether (b)(2) or not (b)(2) is indeed the question.” 

While some would argue he is no Shakespeare, rapper Ludacris has also been quoted from the bench. After a court reporter recorded a witness calling another a “hoe,” the presiding judge issued the following clarification: “A ‘hoe,’ of course, is a tool used for weeding and gardening. We think the court reporter, unfamiliar with rap music (perhaps thankfully so), misunderstood [the witness’s] response. We have taken the liberty of changing ‘hoe’ to ‘ho,’ a staple of rap music vernacular as, for example, when Ludacris raps ‘You doin’ ho activities with ho tendencies.’” Unfortunately, this clarification, as so many out-of-character judicial quips are, was relegated to a footnote. 

Sometimes judges have just had enough, and their exasperation takes the form of modern slang. Seemingly fed up by the excessive litigiousness of parties embroiled in a trademark infringement dispute, a 9th Circuit judge concluded his opinion with the admonishment, “The parties are advised to chill.” Perhaps the clerks deserve some credit for this one?

Judges are humans too, and sometimes they can’t resist a clever quip when a particularly outrageous set of facts comes across their bench. For example, in holding that a seller was estopped from denying that her house was haunted because she spent years telling the public of its resident ghosts, a New York appellate judge declared that “as a matter of law, the house is haunted.” While examining whether a decedent had revoked a prior will, a judge explained that the decedent “urinated on it then burned it. We hesitate to speculate how he accomplished the second act after the first.” An opinion in a copyright case about “Whats” and “Wuzzles” is replete with punny antics such as, “The questions before us are really quite simple: Just what’s a ‘What,’ what’s the similarity between a ‘What’ and a ‘Wuzzle,’ and ‘Wuzzle’ we do about it?”

The Cases for and Against Judicial Humor

Judicial humor may make the law more accessible and increase the legitimacy of the judicial system.

When asked why his judicial opinions often included references to popular culture, Justice Antonin Scalia replied, “It makes the opinion interesting, which might induce somebody to read it.”  While the ideal civic-minded individual stays updated on important legal rulings, the reality is that judicial opinions are often dense and jargon-heavy. Humor is one way to break up this density and connect with the reader, lawyers and non-lawyers alike. Not to mention a well-placed quip might just elicit a much-needed laugh from a tired law student reading their sixth opinion of the day. 

Judicial humor, when done correctly, might also increase the legitimacy of the judicial system. Humor can make judges feel more relatable and human, especially for a non-lawyer audience. When a judge makes a humorous pop culture reference or clever one-liner, readers may perceive them as relatable public officials who are in touch with the real world rather than cold arbitrators doling out decisions from their ivory towers. Humor can demonstrate that our legal system is dictated not by robots but by informed individuals from our own communities. 

However, ill-thought-out judicial humor runs the risk of demeaning litigants, trivializing harm in high-stakes proceedings, and subsequently undermining the legitimacy of the judicial system. For example, a “joke” aimed at a defendant in a high-stakes criminal proceeding could be seen as patronizing, out of touch, and offensive. Such a joke would undermine the court’s credibility rather than boost it. Judges seem to understand this for the most part, limiting their humor based on the context and stakes of the case.

A Guideline for When Humor is Appropriate

Humor certainly has a time and a place in the courtroom. Judges are not on the bench to entertain; they must uphold an image of impartiality, order, and legitimacy. Humor may support or undermine these goals, so where should judges draw the line? As demonstrated by past judicial behaviour, judges consider the context and stakes of the case, as well as who they are directing their humor to. In high-stakes cases, such as criminal proceedings where individual liberties are at stake, judges keep their decisions appropriately buttoned up. On the other hand, humor is most effective when personal liberties are not at stake and when aimed at other judges/justices, or absurd facts rather than the litigants themselves. In the end, the most effective judicial jesters follow the same rule as any stand-up comedian: read the room.