WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lent her name and presence to a lecture series cosponsored by the liberal NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that often argues before the court in support of women's rights that the justice embraces.
In January, Ginsburg gave opening remarks for the fourth installment in the Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law. Two weeks earlier, she had voted in a medical screening case and taken the side promoted by the legal defense fund in its friend-of-the-court brief.
The liberal Ginsburg's involvement with the legal activist group, and recent outside activities by a conservative colleague, Justice Antonin Scalia, have touched off a debate over what kinds of extrajudicial appearances and contacts are appropriate for Supreme Court justices.
The code of conduct for the federal courts does not set clear rules for judges' involvement with advocacy groups. But it warns jurists to steer clear of outside legal activities that would "cast reasonable doubt on the capacity to decide impartially any issue that may come before" them.
Federal law says a judge or justice "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Several legal specialists said Ginsburg's ongoing affiliation with the legal activist group undercuts her appearance of impartiality. Ginsburg declined to comment.
Though as a lawyer Ginsburg was well known for her support of women's rights, Monroe Freedman, professor of law at Hofstra University, said she should have severed her public ties with backers of women's issues when she was named to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993.
"I think this crosses the line," he said.
Ginsburg's affiliation with the advocacy group raises issues similar to those prompted by the appearance last year by Scalia before a group whose members oppose gay rights at the same time the court was weighing a landmark gay-rights case.
Kathy Rodgers, president of the NOW legal defense fund, said Ginsburg's connection with the group should not raise questions about her impartiality as a Supreme Court justice.
"She is always very careful in her remarks," Rodgers said. "I've never heard her address cases that are in front of the court. So I don't see any evidence of her violating her impartiality."
Ginsburg was a member of the board of the legal defense fund for a brief time in the 1970s and also served on the group's advisory committee for judicial education. But Rodgers said there is no "alliance" between Ginsburg and the defense fund.
The NOW legal defense fund brings lawsuits in the lower courts and regularly files briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, it has urged the Supreme Court to uphold affirmative action in the University of Michigan cases, to endorse gay rights in a Texas sodomy case, and to preserve the Family Medical Leave Act in a Nevada case.
On Jan. 29, Ginsburg introduced this year's speaker, Roxanne Conlin, a prominent trial lawyer who also cochaired Democratic Senator John Edwards's presidential campaign in Iowa. The legal defense fund's website features a photo of Ginsburg and Rodgers together.
Two weeks before the event, the Supreme Court voted unanimously with women's rights advocates in a case that tested a state's duty to provide medical screening for low-income children. The legal defense fund filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on what turned out to be the winning side.
Joni Jones, an assistant state attorney general in Utah, filed a competing friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 19 states. Told of Ginsburg's connection with the legal defense fund, Jones said: "They're an advocacy group. When you are a judge or a justice of the Supreme Court, everything you can do to appear completely impartial is important."
Other legal specialists ranged in their comments from critical to cautious.
"It is not illegal, but as a matter of judgment, I would say appearing before the NOW legal defense fund is inappropriate," said Geoffrey C. Hazard, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania.
Others had no problem with justices speaking before legal or advocacy groups.
"This is a judgment call. We have to be careful here," said Stephen Gillers, professor of law at New York University and another specialist on legal ethics. "I think judges and justices should participate in broad legal debates, but within restraints."