Category: Uncategorized

Arkansas judges issue conflicting orders on judicial election attack ads

I reported last week on a lawsuit brought by Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Courtney Goodson against the Judicial Crisis Network, a special interest group that has been running attack ads against her in the days leading up to the state’s nonpartisan supreme court election. Justice Goodson’s initial request for a temporary restraining order was granted by one trial court, with the understanding that a more complete hearing for a preliminary injunction would take place later in the week.

On Friday, that hearing did take place — in front of a different judge after the original judge had to recuse due to a conflict. The new judge, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza, found that Justice Goodson was likely to prevail on the merits of her claim, and granted the preliminary injunction, thereby blocking all television stations from running the attack ads. But in a strange twist, just hours later a second judge in the same circuit declined to grant the injunction in a parallel case. The dual outcomes mean that voters in some parts of Northwest Arkansas have been able to see the attack ads in the final days of the campaign, while others have been barred from doing so.

An excellent summary of the events, with far more detail than I care to set out here, can be found in this Arkansas Online story.

As I previously noted, this case raises a variety of important issues–about freedom of expression and its limits, the power of injunctions, and the wisdom of electing judges. We’ll continue to follow it through Election Day and beyond.

Minnesota Supreme Court to hold public hearing on courtroom cameras

Today’s hearing on permitting cameras in criminal cases comes as the state’s courts and legislature split on courtroom transparency: the state supreme court has run a pilot program since 2015 and recently began live streaming its own oral arguments. But some legislators seem determined to restrict any broadcast of criminal proceedings.

 

Berkeley launches Judicial Institute

The University of California, Berkeley has launched a new Judicial Institute to explore the personal and professional issues that judges face. The Institute will be run by the Hon. Jeremy Fogel, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California, and for seven years the head of the Federal Judicial Center.

This is an exciting project, and landing Judge Fogel is a major coup. I’ll look forward to following the Institute’s work in the coming months and years.

New Hampshire judge who doctored own performance evaluation faces charges

Like many states, New Hampshire conducts periodic performance evaluations of its sitting judges. Those evaluations include surveys of attorneys, court staff, and other individuals and agencies who interact with the judge in a professional capacity. (I have written about the importance of these surveys here.)

Unfortunately, Judge Paul Moore apparently did not have confidence in what his outside reviewers would say about his work. So he allegedly submitted dozens of anonymous survey responses himself, using different computers from around his home and workplace, in order to artificially raise his survey scores. Moore admitted the charges last week.

Moore is currently on administrative leave without pay. The state’s Judicial Conduct Committee will take up his case later this month.

An example of nomination cascades in Georgia

I recently wrote a post for Prawfsblawg on judicial nomination cascades, in which a sitting judge is elevated to a higher court, leaving a seat on the bench which itself must be filled. Sometimes the cascade stops after the second appointment, but on occasion we see triple or even quadruple cascades, as each seat is subsequently filled with a judge from a lower court. (A commenter to the Prawfsblawg post, for example, noted the Rehnquist-Scalia-Sentelle-Voorhees cascade at the federal level in 1986-87).

Federal nomination cascades often run to the state level, where governors (and occasionally legislatures) typically have authority to fill judicial vacancies by appointment. In recent weeks, the Georgia Court of Appeals has been particularly affected: three judges have been nominated (and two confirmed) for federal positions. With another judge retiring soon, Governor Nathan Deal will have to fill four of the court’s fifteen seats in short order.

Georgians should be proud that their intermediate appellate court has produced so many jurists thought worthy of federal positions. But the state will have to act quickly and carefully to keep the Court of Appeals at full strength.

 

A look inside the merit selection process for United States Magistrate Judges

United States Magistrate Judges play a critical role in the administration of justice at the district court level. They frequently handle arraignments and other preliminary criminal issues and discovery disputes in civil cases, and on occasion try cases by consent of the parties that otherwise would be tried to a district judge. But the selection and tenure of magistrate judges is far different than for their district court colleagues. Magistrate judges are Article I judges, serving at the pleasure of Congress. Instead of life tenure, they have eight-year renewable terms. And instead of presidential nomination and Senate confirmation, they obtain their jobs through a local merit selection process.

Two forthcoming openings for Magistrate Judge positions in the Southern District of Illinois give a glimpse into the nature of the selection process. Interested candidates send their applications to a specially chosen merit selection panel, comprised of seven lawyers and two non-lawyers, who vet the applications and submit a list of 6-10 names to the district judges for final selection.

Although Magistrate Judges lack the Constitutional power of Article III judges, many have gone on to fill district court openings later in their careers.  Good luck to all interested candidates.

Connecticut legislature splits 20-20 on state chief justice nomination

Voting yesterday on whether to promote current state Supreme Court Justice Andrew McDonald to the position of Chief Justice, the Connecticut Judiciary Committee split 20 for, and 20 against. The vote will be treated as an unfavorable report that now goes to the entire legislature.

Proponents of the nomination, which was advanced by Governor Daniel Malloy, argue that Justice McDonald is well-qualified and should not be the victim of election-year politics. Opponents argue that McDonald lacks sufficient experience to be Chief Justice.

I don’t know enough about Justice McDonald to have any opinion on the ultimate outcome, other than to agree strongly with the sentiment that election year politics (or any politics, for that matter) should play no role in selecting or promoting judges.

Two new justices appointed to Israel Supreme Court

Two nominees for Israel’s Supreme Court were confirmed this week.  Alex Stein, a Brooklyn Law professor who was born in the Soviet Union, will join current Tel Aviv District Court judge Ofer Grosskopf on the country’s highest court. They will replace Yoram Dinziger and Uri Shoham, whose terms end later this year.

The nominations were not without controversy. Stein has lived in the United States for the past 14 years (he previously lived in Israel), but has a reputation as a conservative and was strongly supported by current Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The confirmations also came just a week after another Tel Aviv District Court judge, Khaled Kabub, withdrew his candidacy for the Supreme Court. Kabub, an Israeli Arab and a Muslim, faced stiff confirmation headwinds after another Israeli Arab, George Kara, was appointed to the court last year.