The Anglican Church in North America will ask that members and officers of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop refrain from engaging in secular partisan political statements to preserve the integrity and impartiality of the proceedings.
In a statement given to Anglican.Ink on 26 Jan 2026, a spokesman for the ACNA said: “An ecclesiastical trial requires the highest commitment to the appearance of impartiality and independence. It is the standard for members of the Court to exercise restraint in their public communications to ensure that the integrity of the proceedings is never called into question.”
“To maintain the integrity of the ecclesiastical disciplinary process and manage public expectations, at its orientation this week, the Court plans to discuss its communication protocols. This will include discussion about what type and/or frequency of updates the court expects to post publicly throughout the trial, as well as Court members’ willingness to refrain from individual social media commentary on public or political matters for the duration of the proceedings.”
The statement from the ACNA’s main office follows a social media posting by Katie Grosskopf, the Presiding Officer of the Court for the Trial of a Bishop. On X Ms Grosskopf wrote:
“I’m praying for ICE and DHS. Specifically for the agent or staffer whose stomach is starting to curdle at everything they know and who’s going to gather information and turn on the whole enterprise. May God change them and guide them and give them the wisdom they previously lacked. I have to believe this person exists.”
The ACNA Court for the Trial of a Bishop has seven voting members: three bishops, two presbyters, and two adult confirmed lay members. All are elected by the Provincial Council and normally serve three‑year terms, with alternates in each category elected at the same time. Every member and alternate must be an active ACNA member in good standing; legal training is not required, but people with legal experience are often nominated because of the complexity of the work.
Among the three bishop‑members, the senior bishop by consecration date automatically serves as the President of the Court. This President is the court’s built‑in presiding figure: the senior bishop does not need to be elected by the Court itself; the role follows automatically from canonical seniority among the three bishops already elected to the Court.
The canons require the Court “to establish its own procedures” for how it will conduct trials, within broad due‑process limits, but they do not** publish a fixed, province‑wide rule for choosing any additional “presiding officer” distinct from the President. In the Ruch trial, the ACNA distinguished between the President (the senior bishop) and a Presiding Member/Officer used for practical chairing or particular actions; those internal roles are assigned by the Court itself under its self‑adopted procedures, not by a separate provincial election.
The espousal of hard left, or right, political opinions by members of the court will be a matter of deep concern for the integrity of the proceedings. While Archbishop Steve Wood has publicly endorsed Black Lives Matters and is perceived as left of center, Bishop Derek Jones is a strong political conservative, who has already voiced concerns the prosecution against him has been motivated by his traditional theological and conservative viewpoints.
Having an outspoken critic of ICE numbered amongst his judges could well taint the entire proceedings, and at the very least will give succor to his allies who believe he has been attacked by the liberal factions within the ACNA.