Tag: law and politics

Did everyone miss the point of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report?

Per tradition, Chief Justice John Roberts quietly released his 2024 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary on New Year’s Eve. Each year’s report briefly expounds on a single theme before concluding with a high-level statistical summary of the federal court’s work. The report typically garners relatively little attention, but this year was different. Some talking heads are convinced that the report is a direct jab at Donald Trump or J.D. Vance, or at least a warning to the country of the dystopian future heading our way on January 20. Others have suggested the report is an exercise in hypocrisy by a politicized Supreme Court that is unwilling to face criticism. Even the more dispassionate analyses have concluded that the report is, at its core, a condemnation of threats to judges or a call to protect judicial independence.

All of these have missed the point. The Year-End Reports are always terse, cautious, and carefully written, and the Chief Justice almost never directly states his views in full. One has to look for the hints. And this year the hints point to a real, if deliberately understated, concern about the erosion of respect for the rule of law and the country’s democratic institutions.

Continue reading “Did everyone miss the point of the Chief Justice’s Year-End Report?”

House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?

This week, the House of Representatives comfortably passed the JUDGES Act (S.4199), which would add 66 federal judgeships over the next ten years. The judgeships would be phased in over ten years, with the first two tranches coming in 2025 and 2027.

The Senate passed the same bill back in August, but House Republicans stalled a vote on the bill until after the election. Now that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the House Democrats decided that it was their turn to play politics with the judiciary and slow-played the vote until mid-December.

This is an excellent result for a resource-starved judiciary. But it appears that the drama will continue for a while, as President Biden has threatened to veto the bill on his way out the door. It’s worth unpacking the illogic and petulance of his threat.

Continue reading “House votes to add 66 new federal judgeships; will Biden veto?”

Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits

Arizona lawmakers have advanced a ballot measure that would eliminate term limits for many state judges, instead making judicial service dependent on “good behavior.” The bill would have retroactive effect, meaning that if voters pass it in November, all judges who currently face periodic retention elections would effectively be granted life terms. This would apply even to judges who lose a retention bid in the same November election.

The immediate practical impact of the measure is to severly curb the number of judicial retention elections, a mainstay in Arizona for decades. Currently, all state appellate judges, as well as Superior Court judges in Coconimo, Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal Counties, face retention at the end of their set terms of office. Under the proposed measure, however, such judges would only face a retention vote upon (1) conviction of a felony or another crime involving fraud or dishonesty, (2) initiation of personal backruptcy proceedings, or (3) a determination by the Judicial Performance Review (JPR) Commission that the judge does not meet performance standards. Continue reading “Arizona legislature advances measure to eliminate judicial term limits”

Judges continue to face direct threats from the public

Three stories came across the wire today. A Washington woman was sentenced to nineteen months in prison after she left multiple voice mails for the judge threatening to “put a bullet in [his] head.” A South Bend, Indiana man was arrested at his home after making “disturbing threats” against two local judges. And a Minnesota man was charged after posting a Facebook video in which he threatened a judge and contemplated shooting up a courthouse.

Each of these individuals seems to have been angry about their own legal problems, and in some instances intoxication or mental illness may have been a factor. But they also made these threats in a modern political atmosphere that devalues judges and the court system, and makes personal attacks on judges–whether physical or verbal–almost ordinary. Just a few years ago, the vehemence with which Donald Trump attacked individual judges by name was shocking. Now that tactic has been embraced by the Democrats, who are doing everything they can to cloud the legitimacy of the courts and sully the names (and safety) of jurists who do not fall in line with the progressive agenda.

Do politicians want blood on their hands? They are not responsible for every lunatic who wants to harm a judge, but they could stop creating such fertile ground for lunacy to blossom.

Judges speak out about growing threats of violence. Should they be able to arm themselves more easily?

This week, members of the Idaho Supreme Court issued a statement claiming that they, their families, and their employees have been targeted with threats and harrassment: “when disagreement becomes personal, to the point of threats against personal safety and security … a line has been crossed.” Threats of violence are now commonplace for many state and federal judges. And all too frequently, real violence erupts with tragic consequences.

Congress passed legislation last year that would increase security for federal judges. And now a Republican legislator is proposing a bill that would make it easier for federal judges to arm themselves on their way in and out of the courthouse.

It’s a difficult policy question as to whether the security of judges and their families is enhanced by easing their own access to firearms. But plainly more needs to be done to build confidence that those in the judiciary are safe from threats of violence and harassment simply for doing their jobs.

South Carolina faces internal dissent over its judicial selection process

New York is not the only state suffering though high-profile dysfunction with its judicial selection process. This week, the South Carolina legislature postponed its scheduled judicial elections, and several legislators as well as the governor called for changes to the state’s selection process.

South Carolina is one of only two states that chooses its judges by legislative election. Proponents of this approach have argued that it keeps judges more closely aligned with the values and sensibilities of the people. Opponents argue that it politicizes judicial selection (in that judicial candidates must win over legislators in order to secure their votes) and makes the judiciary subservient to the legislature. Indeed, many states moved to direct judicial elections in the nineteenth century because of concerns about legislative interference with the judicial process. Continue reading “South Carolina faces internal dissent over its judicial selection process”

Progressives win the LaSalle battle, but at what cost?

Last week, the progressives in New York’s General Assembly effectively killed the nomination of Justice Hector LaSalle to be the Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals. As I have documented previously, the opposition had nothing to do with LaSalle’s qualifications or experience, but rather a ginned-up power play over Governor Kathy Hochul. In doing so, they prevented LaSalle from becoming the first Hispanic Chief Judge of the high court.

Identity sure seems to matter to progressives — until it doesn’t.

More broadly, Albany’s progressives are joyfully gutting a coequal branch of government in order to engage in an intramural fight with the governor. The Court of Appeals, in need of a Chief Justice for months, remains without an administrative leader. And the entire state court system has been deprived of leadership with respect to their everyday work.

All New Yorkers should be outraged on this assault on their judiciary. The consequences will become evident soon enough.

South Dakota mulls ending contested judicial elections

The legislative proposal is still in its early stages, and would need voter approval in 2024. It would end contested elections of judges and create a mechanism for formally allowing all judges to be appointed by the Governor. All judges would then face periodic retention elections, during which they would run unopposed and voters would choose to retain them for another term.

The proposal is far less radical as it seems. As this article points out, almost all state judges are already appointed to fill vacancies that occur between election cycles. Indeed, almost no judges actually ascend to the bench in the first instance from a direct election. Removing the requirement of contested elections is therefore as much a housekeeping measure as anything else.

It’s also an excellent idea. Contested judicial elections are in fact almost never contested, and when they are they are subject to deep politicization. Retention elections would continue to provide accountability to the voters, especially if it is paired with a robust judicial performance evaluation program.

Let’s see how this plays out. It is a hard thing for voters to give up their franchise, even in elections where there is rarely a decision to be made. But it is a development that bears watching.

New Jersey courts struggle with judicial vacancies

New Jersey’s court system currently has 65 judicial vacancies, leading one lawmaker to propose raising the state’s mandatory retirement age for judges in order keep exising jurists on the bench.

Like many states, New Jersey currently requires its judges to retire at age 70. But a mandatory retirement system presumes that the state will quickly fill judicial seats as they become vacant. In fact, both Governor Phil Murphy and the state legislature have been slow to act on existing vacancies, creating a crisis so significant that nearly eighty retired judges have been temporarily called back into service to help clear the caseload backlog.

State Senator Shirley Turner is proposing raising the mandatory judicial retirement age to 75. It is a stopgap measure, to be sure. The only way to solve the crisis is for the other branches of state government to take their nomination and confirmation responsibilities seriously.

The situation in New Jersey perfectly illustrates the resource challenges that court systems must navigate in the 2020s. The heightened politicization of every aspect of American life has led the executive and legislative branches to treat each judicial vacancy as an zero-sum partisan event. (See the current kerfuffle in New York.) Meanwhile the courts, unable to secure the human resources they need to address their dockets and unable to control the flow of cases into the system, have to resort to recalls and other strategies to keep up with their workload. No wonder public confidence in every branch of government is in decline.

Former judges, former governor, opposition party all call for Justice LaSalle to get a fair vote

Justice Hector LaSalle’s nomination for Chief Justice of the New York Court of Appeals has received additional support from a wide range of sources, including a dozen former judges, former Governor David Paterson, and some members of the Republican minority in the New York General Assembly. LaSalle’s nomination is currently being held up by partisans and progressive activists in Governor Kathy Hochul’s own party.

If Justice LaSalle is not the man for the job, by all means let that be reflected in debate and a final vote. But to try to sink that debate before it begins, especially when his nomination followed a well-structured and established process, is strong-arm politics at its most cynical.