CHARLESTON – A federal judge has ruled a West Virginia Supreme Court candidate isn’t limited by what he can say about certain issues on the campaign trail.
Sheehan
In an April 1 memorandum order and opinion, U.S. District Judge Thomas E. Johnston denied Martin P. Sheehan’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against enforcement of some West Virginia judicial campaign rules.
Sheehan, a Wheeling attorney, challenged the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct in a March 9 filing and March 13 re-filing related to campaign speech restrictions, saying the West Virginia Judicial Investigation Commission rules unconstitutionally limited what he could say while campaigning.
The JIC and JIC Counsel Teresa Tarr argued that the rules are categorically different from a prior restraint because they call for “action, such as punishment, after speaking” instead of requiring prior approval. The defendants also said “the challenged rules aren’t particularly complex nor does the WVJIC receive any special deference.”
Following a March 26 hearing, Johnston agreed with the JIC.
In his 14-page order, Johnston said Sheehan did not meet the standards for an injunction at this stage, including likelihood of success on the merits and the need for immediate court intervention.
Johnston’s order concludes that, on the current record, the judicial campaign restrictions do not clearly violate the First Amendment as applied to this candidate’s planned speech. He also says the balance of harms and the public interest weigh against suspending statewide judicial conduct rules on an emergency basis in the middle of an election cycle.
“As the state notes in its judicial handbook for candidates and judges, ‘public confidence in the independence and impartiality of the judiciary is eroded if judges or judicial candidates are perceived to be subject to political influence,’” Johnston wrote. “The court agrees. … West Virginia is assuring its citizens that West Virginia judges will ‘apply the law without fear or favor.’ …
“Thus, West Virginia has a compelling interest in preserving the judicial impartiality of its courts. A state’s compelling interest in impartiality is narrowly tailored when it operates without unnecessarily ‘circumscribing protected expression.’”
In his filings, Sheehan mentions the rules regarding making any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court as well as statements in connection with cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.
“Plaintiff also argues that the ‘the public interest in robust campaign activity also favors striking impediments to such activity,’” Johnston wrote. “Defendants argue that ‘the public has no interest in a Supreme Court campaign season where candidates are permitted to make improper promises that undermine judicial impartiality.’
“Here, the balance of equities favors defendants because they seek to preserve and protect judicial impartiality, and … restrict only a narrow amount of speech. Additionally, the public has an interest in knowing that ‘judges will apply the law without fear or favor.’… Plaintiff cannot satisfy these two final factors.”
Sheehan has practiced law for more than 45 years. He previously applied for Supreme Court openings in 2018 and 2025, and he previously ran for a seat in the House of Delegates. He also is a former assistant U.S. attorney.
He is running for one of two state Supreme Court seats on the May 12 ballot against sitting Justice Gerald Titus, Berkeley Circuit Judge Laura Faircloth, Raleigh Circuit Judge Todd Kirby and retired Raleigh Circuit Judge Harry Kirkpatrick. Judicial elections in West Virginia are non-partisan, so the justice will be selected in the May 12 election.
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case number 2:26-cv-00180
