Maryland Supreme Court Justice Peter Killough is under fire after Halloween yard decorations that included mock gravestones with messages about the Constitution, free speech, health care and climate set off a debate over judicial impartiality. Critics say those displays make it hard to trust his role in an ongoing, high-stakes environmental lawsuit against major oil companies. Supporters argue the decorations are personal and not reflective of judicial action, but the timing has put questions about recusal and courtroom fairness squarely in the spotlight. The dispute also revives memories of earlier controversies in Killough’s career and raises broader worries about public confidence in the courts.
The decorations reportedly included gravestones reading “Here lies the Constitution,” “RIP Freedom of Speech,” “RIP Food Aid,” “Beware Health Insurance Cuts,” “RIP Due Process,” and “RIP Climate Science.” That list of messages, displayed around the judge’s home, struck many as overtly political and targeted at issues that could surface in litigation. When a sitting justice appears to endorse a viewpoint in public life, it naturally invites skepticism about whether they can set those views aside when deciding cases. Voters and litigants alike expect judges to avoid the appearance of bias so their rulings carry legitimacy.
Those concerns are particularly acute because the Maryland Supreme Court is hearing Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. BP P.L.C., a major lawsuit where Baltimore officials accuse oil companies of misleading the public about fossil fuels and contributing to costly local harms from sea level rise and extreme weather. Oral arguments were heard on October 6, and the case has been closely watched nationwide for its potential consequences. Opponents of the display say that when a justice’s private life sends a strong political message, it muddies the waters for any party seeking a fair hearing.
A spokesperson for the Maryland Judiciary, Nick Cavey, told reporters that “the signs belong to Justice Killough’s wife” and that the Justice “has no further comments.” That official response acknowledges the origin of the decorations while leaving the legal fallout unresolved. For many observers, however, who placed the decorations is less important than how they look to the public and the litigants whose fates hang on judicial decisions. Silence from the bench rarely calms concerns once they gain public traction.
Former Arizona Supreme Court Justice Andrew Gould told a news outlet that the decorations indicate clear biases and raise serious doubt over whether Killough should be involved in the case at all. “It’s cast a shadow over the decision now,” Gould said. “The public, whatever side you’re on, is inevitably going to feel distrust.” He went on to add, “If the judge really felt this way, he should have recused himself,” and “If it’s a case where he has such strong political leanings, then he shouldn’t have sat on it. The problem now is … the case has already been argued. The briefs have already been submitted. It’s already been sent to the court to issue a ruling. How can you un-ring the bell now?” These blunt remarks capture why recusal questions become urgent when apparent partiality surfaces late in a case.
This episode is not the first time Killough has drawn scrutiny. In 2022, while serving as a circuit court judge in Prince George’s County, he was removed from juvenile dockets after complaints from local officials who said he treated violent youth offenders too leniently. One high-profile instance involved a 12-year-old who admitted to shooting and killing another teen and was spared jail, placed instead on monitored probation. The victim’s mother, Ja’Ka McKnight, said the ruling “was a slap in my face, I felt like a suspect in the courtroom,” and added, “I didn’t understand it, he was laid back and nonchalant about it.”
Killough’s rise to the state’s highest court came after his appointment by Governor Wes Moore in July of 2024, and his record has been scrutinized by critics and supporters alike since. Appointments inevitably have political overtones, but once on the bench a justice’s duty is to apply the law fairly, not to broadcast opinions that align with one side in contentious public debates. When that duty is questioned, it fuels calls for clearer ethical standards and faster mechanisms to resolve recusal disputes.
From a Republican viewpoint, judges should be above partisan spectacle, not actors in it. The whole point of an independent judiciary is to protect citizens from political influence, not to mirror the loudest opinions on a front lawn. If a judge’s household displays messages that echo the arguments of parties standing before the bench, the safe and honest step is to step aside or at least explain why impartiality remains intact. Anything less risks eroding the trust that underpins our legal system.
Public confidence matters more than convenience or appearances. Courts work only when people believe outcomes were reached by neutral application of law, not by the preferences of the decisionmaker. With a major climate case pending and a record of contested rulings in the past, the pressure for transparency, ethics review or recusal will likely keep this story in the headlines until it is resolved. Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
