Political tug-of-war over North Carolina courts continues

Last month, the North Carolina legislature voted to move all state judicial elections back to partisan contests, overriding a veto by Governor Roy Cooper in the process.  Now a new legislative battle is looming: the reduction in the size of the state’s court of appeals.

North Carolina currently has a 15-member court of appeals, but House Bill 239 would reduce its size to twelve members.  The immediate impact would be that three Republican judges who are nearing mandatory retirement age could not be replaced by Governor Cooper, a Democrat.  The Governor has vetoed the bill, noting correctly that “Having three fewer judges will increase the court’s workload and delay timely appeals.”  The legislature, however, is expected to override the veto.

These issues keep arising in a political context, but the sensible structuring of the courts to allow them to conduct their business should not be a partisan issue.  The North Carolina legislature is playing games with the administration of justice, pure and simple.

 

Fourth Circuit mulls live streaming next month’s arguments on travel ban

The Fourth Circuit’s openness to live streaming comes in the wake of significant public interest in the Ninth Circuit’s live stream of similar arguments in February.  More the 137,000 people logged on to hear those arguments.

From the National Law Journal story:

Rob Rosborough, a partner at Whiteman Osterman & Hanna in Albany, New York, added that he was “impressed by how accessible it made the proceedings seem in a highly technical case like that one.”

“You could hear phenomenal attorneys on both sides advocate for their clients on issues that had an impact on millions of people nationwide,” Rosborough said. “I do think that the Fourth Circuit, and all courts, should livestream arguments in all cases, especially in cases like the travel ban that have drawn such public interest.”

The Fourth Circuit has not live streamed arguments to date, although it does post audio files of arguments on its website the day after they are held.

Lubet on an ethics code for the Supreme Court

I’m a few days late on this, but Northwestern law professor Steven Lubet has written an interesting op-ed on the need for an explicit code of ethics for the U.S. Supreme Court.  Don’t be put off by the annoying nature of the CNN website or the clickbait headline, for which Steve understandably disclaims responsibility.

Grassley: expect another Supreme Court vacancy this summer

The Hill reports on Senator Charles Grassley’s statements to a local Iowa newspaper.  It is unclear whether there is anything more than conjecture to this prediction, but it does seem reasonably likely that there will be at least one more vacancy before January 20, 2021.  The real question is whether there will be a vacancy before the midterm elections next year, since a change in the composition of the Senate could impact both nomination and confirmation strategies.

Gen X prepares to take the bench

David Lat has a typically insightful post at Above the Law, looking at the potential nominees for openings in the federal district courts and federal circuit courts. One of the more striking parts of his analysis is the relative youth of many of the names being kicked around — most are in their 30s or 40s.  This makes sense from the President’s perspective; younger judges allow him to shape the federal bench for decades to come.  But it is also a moment of reckoning for those of us in that generation. Continue reading “Gen X prepares to take the bench”

Washington’s senators ask President to honor work of their judicial screening committee

In several states, the two senators collectively create a screening committee to recommend names of local attorneys and state judges to the President for a federal judicial appointment. The committees are not mandatory, and have been used somewhat haphazardly over time, but they do allow senators to provide useful information to the President about qualified individuals for the federal bench. The committees also help lock the senators in when home-state openings arise: by pre-screening a list of possible candidates, the senators are essentially telling the President that they will support any nominee who comes from that list. Such advance agreement avoids the embarrassment that Senator Michael Bennett must have felt earlier this month when, for purely partisan reasons, he had to vote against an extremely well-qualified fellow Coloradan, Neil Gorsuch, for the Supreme Court. Continue reading “Washington’s senators ask President to honor work of their judicial screening committee”

New York City faces few takers for interim judicial appointments

According to this story, a special counsel for Mayor Bill de Blasio has noted the difficulty of finding qualified applicants to fill interim posts on the New York City Civil Court.  It’s not hard to see why.  Candidates are guaranteed only one year on the bench, after which they must stand for election to keep their positions.  But in New York’s byzantine judicial election system, which is largely run by party bosses and was once flatly characterized by Justice Stevens as “stupid,” excellent service on the bench for a year is no guarantee of future employment.

Consider the problem from the perspective of potential applicants.  To move to the bench, those in private practice would have to give up their clients, essentially depleting years or decades of work in developing a book of business.  It would be professionally negligent, if not career suicide, to allow all your clients to move on in return for a one-year gig on the bench.  Potential applicants in the District Attorney’s office or Public Defender’s office might be able to extract themselves a bit more easily, but face similar risks in moving themselves back and forth from the bench.  As a result, the pool of potential applicants is likely to contain near-retirees or lawyers without much business than it is high-quality attorneys in their prime.

New York, like other states, could resolve the problem by moving away from judicial elections altogether.  Appointed judges would have more confidence in their ability to stay on the bench for a while, given good behavior.

Brooklyn court restructures approach to criminal docket

This is an interesting piece on recent administrative changes made at the Criminal Term of the Brooklyn Supreme Court to combat backlog and process cases more efficiently.  Efficiency in case processing is often overemphasized, and can be stressed to the detriment of other important factors of court productivity.  But it is still a very visible part of court operations, and accordingly very important.  Courts should be applauded for seeking out internal ways to handle their duties efficiently.