The New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics published Opinion 23-54. The opinion does not name Juan M. Merchan. The New York Law Journal and Reuters reported that the facts match the Trump docket and Merchan’s inquiry: a criminal case against a former public official; contributions totaling less than $50, more than two years old, one of them to the person who opposed the defendant in an election; a first-degree relative whose business does political work.
The committee’s conclusion, in its own words: a judge’s impartiality cannot reasonably be questioned based on “(a) de minimis political contributions made more than two years ago or (b) the business and/or political activities of the judge’s first-degree relative, where the relative has no direct or indirect involvement in the proceeding and no interests that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” On the contributions: “these modest political contributions made more than two years ago cannot reasonably create an impression of bias or favoritism in the case before the judge.”
On the relative: the matter “does not involve either the judge’s relative or the relative’s business, whether directly or indirectly.” They are not parties or likely witnesses, and “none of the parties or counsel before the judge are clients of the business.” The committee said it saw nothing suggesting the outcome would affect the relative or the business.
That is an advisory ethics opinion. It is not a jury verdict. It is not a finding that no appearance of impropriety exists in the political sense. Merchan later quoted it in his recusal denials. Quote the opinion. Do not upgrade it.