Following the verdict of the Utah Supreme Court, Judge Michael Kwan's Facebook posts were "full of blunt and sometimes indecent criticisms" of Trump.
Comments have been made in recent years both during Trump's 2016 campaign and after his appointment as President. They contained a reference to the band "Access Hollywood," on which Trump made rough comments on women and in one case described his presidency as a "fascist takeover."
The Utah Supreme Court concluded that Kwan's statements violated the state's code of conduct and could undermine the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
"Judge Kwan's behavior denigrates his reputation as an impartial, independent, dignified, and courteous lawyer who takes no advantage of the office in which he serves," said the verdict, drafted by Utah Supreme Court Justice John A. Pearce , "And it reduces the reputation of our entire judiciary."
Kwan's attorney Gregory Skordas told CNN that he and his client were "disappointed but not necessarily surprised" by the verdict.
Skordas said Kwan admitted he made comments on political candidates and elected officials, "but he felt his primary message was politics rather than candidates."
"He is a beloved man and his passion for his culture is crucial to him in trouble," Skordas said of his client, the son of Chinese immigrants who fled the persecution. "We probably have no other option than to suspend the six months and hope that after this deadline, he will still have a court over which he can preside."
Judge 2017: Welcoming to "The Fascist Takeover"
Kwan has been reprimanded twice in the past for obvious violations of the Code of Conduct. One case involved a "blatant trial" of the sexual behavior of a former president and the other of Kwan's political activities as president of a nonprofit organization.
This time he faced several allegations of misconduct, including comments on his Facebook page and LinkedIn, comments in court, and improper handling of a staffing matter.
A few days after the elections in 2016, Kwan wrote, "I think I'm going to the shelter to adopt a cat before the elected president takes them all." Hollywood cassette where Trump spoke in vulgar language about seizing genitals from women.
On the day of Trump's inauguration, Kwan made a comment to the president, saying, "Will you cut your heels and spend the next four years undermining the reputation and reputation of our country in the world? Do you continue your inability to govern and demonstrate your political incompetence? "
On February 13, 2017, a few weeks after Trump's inauguration, Kwan took another post, the verdict said.
"Welcome to the Beginning of the Fascist Takeover," it said, asking whether Congressional Republicans would be "the American Reichstag and refuse to stand up for the Constitution," referring to the parliamentary body of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler ,
The verdict said these examples are "illustrative," but "not a comprehensive recitation" of Judge's comments and articles posted online and related to Trump.
He challenged Trump's taxation and immigration policies.
In addition to his political comment on Facebook, the judge also made a comment to a defendant in his courtroom, "which apparently demeaned the defendants and contained a political commentary on President Trump's immigration and tax policies."
Following the verdict, the defendant stated that he was waiting for a tax return to settle the fines, whereupon Kwan expressed doubts as to whether the defendant would get back for Trump's money.
"Prayer could answer that," Kwan said, according to the verdict. "Because he just signed a contract to build the wall and he has no money for it, so if you think you'll get back taxes this year, um, yes, maybe, maybe not."
Kwan then referred to a tax cut for people earning more than $ 500,000 and asked if the defendant earned so much money.
Kwan had argued the comment was funny, but the ruling was: "It is unchangeable and universal rule that judges are not as funny as they think they are."
There is a "decent chance "the decision was made that someone in a courtroom would laugh at the joke of a judge because of the" power dynamics of the courtroom and not because of a genuine belief that the joke was funny ".
Supreme Court: Kwan's Statements Threatening His Impartiality
Kwan had argued that his statements were constitutionally protected by the first amendment, a claim that the Supreme Court of Utah did not address directly in its ruling ,
It is more important, however, that Kwan "implicitly used the esteem associated with his justice as a platform" to criticize a candidate.
The judges, according to the verdict, must make sacrifices in their work.
"Fulfillment of judicial duties does not come without the personal sacrifice of some opportunities and privileges available to the public," he said, adding that sometimes a judge "has to lift the power of his voice … as a public instrument Influencing the Outcomes of Local, Regional or National Elections. "
While Kwan's remarks dealt with political issues at a national level, these questions could become issues that are being brought to justice. In addition, they could "make those who disagree with Judge Kwan's policies believe they will not receive a fair shock if they appear before him."
Skordas, Kwan's attorney, said he and his client hoped the Supreme Court would be more sympathetic to Kwan's situation as a child of immigrants. He also said that he believes the harsh punishment may have been driven by the fact that Kwan has been reprimanded in the past.
Ultimately, he and Kwan believe that "the sanction is roughly proportional to behavior"
CNN's Shawn Nottingham and Hollie Silverman have contributed to this report.