In a recent turn of events, a federal judge has expressed his disapproval towards those who support actions of Hamas, stating unequivocally that he would not hire law clerks who have signed letters showing such support, following Hamas’s terrorist attacks on Israel. Judge Matthew Solomson, member of the US Court of Federal Claims, has stated in comments to Bloomberg Law, “If you sign on to a letter that, in essence, supports the actions of Hamas, you’re out as far as I’m concerned.”
He further reinforced this perspective on his LinkedIn post, saying, “I will not hire any student or intern who is a member of any group that signed on to this Harvard letter or any other similar letter, whether from HLS or any other law school”. He clarified this position by explaining that he “refuse(s) to credential anyone who supports or even remotely sympathizes with terror in the form of a modern day pogrom.”
Judge Solomson, who identifies as an Orthodox Jew, compares the endorsement of Hamas to backing groups with hateful ideologies such as the KKK or the Nazis. He clarified his stance, “To me, it’s a simple proposition that just like no judge would hire anyone who endorsed the KKK or the Nazis, anyone who endorses or approves or otherwise gives comfort to—in writing—Hamas, should not be hired.” This emphasises not only his personal stance, but provides a thought-provoking perspective on the neutrality expected from those in the judiciary, and their obligation to distance themselves from affiliations that could bias their judgment or compromise their sense of justice.
This is not the first time that the legal profession’s intersect with political and social ideologies has raised eyebrows, and given the global reach and implications of cases like these, it is far from being the last. It serves as a reminder of the complexities faced by those who have the duty to uphold justice in the face of a global, multifaceted perspective.