W.Va. Supreme Court hears arguments in Judge Sweeney admonishment appeal

CHARLESTON – A conflict between a circuit judge’s efforts to raise awareness about systemic child welfare staffing issues and the regulatory boundaries established by the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct made its way to the state’s highest court Wednesday.

The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Wednesday morning in an appeal brought by 3rd Judiciary Circuit Court Judge Tim Sweeney against the Judicial Investigation Commission (JIC) after he admonished him last year.

Sweeney was charged with violating the Code of Judicial Conduct through improper social media posts, media interviews, and orders regarding an abuse and neglect proceeding.

Arising from a Feb. 3, 2025, review hearing regarding an abused and neglected child who was denied required placement services due to severe understaffing within the state Department of Human Services, Sweeney issued an administrative order appointing high-ranking DoHS leadership as local Child Protective Services (CPS) workers.

Sweeney also granted two media interviews explaining the crisis, including with The Parkersburg News and Sentinel. Judicial Disciplinary Counsel Teresa Tarr alleged these actions violated rules about impartiality and confidence in the judiciary, ensuring the right to be heard and/or due process, and prohibitions about making public statements regarding pending or impending matters.

Tarr also reviewed 27 social media posts by Sweeney spanning over six years. These include law enforcement job announcements, community events and fundraiser reposts, public safety alerts regarding a wanted suspect, human trafficking awareness posts, and a satirical drug enforcement meme. Tarr argued that these posts created an appearance of pro-prosecution bias and violated rules about commenting on impending matters and impermissible fund solicitation.

“The respondent has admitted all of the facts relating to the charges, but he has two arguments,” Tarr said. “The first one is it relates to the Facebook posts as those were designed for informational purposes. And the second one as it relates to the news media interviews is that because the ends justify the means, then he shouldn’t be disciplined for what he did. If the court were to adopt either one of those, that would basically nullify the Code of Judicial Conduct.”

Chief Justice C. Haley Bunn expressed some skepticism regarding the charges over Sweeney’s social media posts. Tarr cited several instances of judges and magistrates engaging in direct solicitations through getting people to participate in multi-level marketing sales or confronting attorneys that did not show up at a political fundraiser.

“You’ll concede, though, there’s a bit of a nuance between those cases you cited and what we have here in that it’s not as direct … a solicitation, and direct is a requirement,” Bunn said.

“It’s not as direct, but it’s still direct because people post things for a reason,” Tarr said. “They post things because they want a response. And in some of these, just posting something can be viewed as saying something.”

Sweeney’s attorney, H.L. Mahaney, said the social media charges only came about after the fact to further justify his admonishment over his unorthodox efforts to bring attention to understaffing issues in CPS.

“Those issues would not have been in front of this court had it not been for the first issue,” Mahaney said. “Nobody ever complained about the Facebook charges. No one ever said, ‘hey, I feel aggrieved by that.’ That was basically something that Judicial Disciplinary Council added on in the course of their investigation.”

Mahaney said there was no reason for Sweeney to be admonished for his February 2025 order for DoHS officials to work as CPS caseworkers. Attorneys for DoHS never filed any objections to Sweeney’s order, which resulted in former DoHS Secretary Alex Mayer – who had just started after being appointed by newly elected Gov. Patrick Morrisey – meeting with Sweeney and Mayer addressing staffing issues.

“Sometimes when judges have to make difficult decisions on the bench, the ends do justify the means,” Mahaney said. “Sometimes when it comes to the welfare and safety of children, the ends are what really matters ... It would be wonderful if the rules of the Code of Judicial Conduct were as mathematically certain as (Tarr) would like this court to believe. But this court knows that that’s not the case.”

“Judges have to make decisions on the spot with the cases in front of them, with children’s lives and well-being on the line as to what is right,” Mahaney continued. And when judges make those decisions in good faith ... those decisions deserve the unqualified respect and support of this court, even if it disagrees with the decision or the means that were used to get there. And a judge should never be punished for having the courage to make that decision. And that’s what happened in this case.”

Mahaney also said that Sweeney did not reveal confidential information from the pending child welfare case when talking with Mayer or the news media.

“I can understand Judge Sweeney’s frustration because I’ve been there. I’ve dealt with the same type of situation,” said Justice H.L. Kirkpatrick. “But it’s uncontroverted that he was speaking about pending cases. Isn’t that correct?”

“I don’t believe that’s true. He talked about systemic problems. not a pending case,” Mahaney said. “For a judge to come in and say, ‘we have a systemic problem. We need to stand up,’ that’s what he said. The buck stops with me. If I don’t stand up for this, who will? And that isn’t affecting a pending case.”

Sweeney is requesting that charges filed against him be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the charges would not be able to be filed again.