The resignation from the federal bench of Judge Mark Wolf is shocking given that the Constitution grants lifetime tenure to federal judges. Judge Wolf, who was appointed by President Reagan, made his announcement in the pages of the Atlantic. He reasons that “I no longer can bear to be restrained by what judges can say publicly or do outside the courtroom.” Opinions and motions — i.e., the law — no longer suffice, it seems. 

Judge Wolf declares that “The White House’s assault on the rule of law is so deeply disturbing to me that I feel compelled to speak out. Silence, for me, is now intolerable.” The Massachusetts-based senior  jurist — meaning his successor has already been appointed — describes how “Day after day, I observed in silence as President Trump, his aides, and his allies dismantled so much of what I dedicated my life to.” Now he is dedicating himself to resistance.

It’s not our intention to gainsay Judge Wolf’s service or integrity. He served at the Justice Department under a sage we greatly admired, Laurence Silberman, later a judge. “Why I Am Resigning,” Judge Wolf’s essay, strikes us as unconvincing. A federal judgeship, after all, is one of the most powerful posts. Judges may be limited when speaking in public, but inside their courtrooms their words command. Their opinions are read for generations.

There are no doubt frustrations to the limitations of a judgeship. To take just one example from a panel of the Second United States Appeals Circuit. It ordered Judge Alvin Hellerstein, 91, to take a second look at whether Mr. Trump’s appeal of his state hush money convictions belongs in a federal forum. Or take Colorado’s  Supreme Court, which disqualified Mr. Trump from the 2024 ballot only to be reversed by a unanimous Supreme Court.

Reversal is a part of the job for every judge who does not sit on the Supreme Court. Even high court justices can find themselves chafing in the minority. Justice Clarence Thomas has authored dissent after dissent for decades. Now it is the court’s liberal wing — Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan — who find themselves in what looks like a long-term minority. Surely they wish they could speak unrestrainedly.

We get that the so-called “duty to sit” applies only to high court sages, who cannot be replaced if they recuse themselves. The spirit of that obligation, though, would appear to touch every judge who swore the oath for a lifetime. Judge Wolf quotes the Irish poet Seamus Heaney’s description of a time when the “longed-for tidal wave of justice can rise up, and hope and history rhyme.” Justice, though, is just what judges are tasked with dispensing.

Judge Wolf explains that he “resigned in order to speak out, support litigation, and work with other individuals and organizations” dedicated to protecting the rule of law. Maybe he can provide some pro bono work to President Trump, who was pursued by, in his view, a political prosecutor. Judge Wolf  says that he also intends to advocate for the “judges who cannot speak publicly for themselves.” Yet aren’t judges meant to communicate solely via their opinions?