ILNews

7th Circuit hears arguments on judicial free speech

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday morning in the case of Indiana Right to Life vs. Randall T. Shepard, et al., 06-4333, in which the state's Commission on Judicial Qualifications and Disciplinary Commission want the court to reverse the District Court's ruling that granted a permanent injunction against provisions in Indiana's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Representing the appellants, George T. Patton Jr. argued the plaintiffs in the case, Indiana Right to Life, do not have standing to bring the suit, stating Indiana Right to Life isn't a judge or judicial candidate and not subject to the canons, and are free to say and publish whatever information they want.

The question of why Indiana Right to Life was bringing the suit instead of a judge or judicial candidate was asked several times by the Circuit judges.

The Circuit judges also asked why Indiana Right to Life filed the suit instead of the judges. In response, the appellees argued the judges declined to answer the questionnaire because they feared facing disciplinary actions.

The judges also questioned how the canons affect Indiana Right to Life in their ability to publish the results of the two judges who did answer the organization's questionnaire.

The appellee argued the listener has an equal constitutional right to receive free speech and cited Shimer v. Washington, 100 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2003) and Penny Saver Publications, Inc. v. Village of Hazel Crest, 905 f.2d 150 (7th Cir. 1990). The person injured by not receiving speech brought the suits, in which the 7th Circuit held they had standing. Indiana Right to Life has constitutional right to receive speech as a listener and their speech has been chilled because of the prospect of punishment of those judges or judicial candidates who answered the questionnaires or declined to answer for fear of sanctions, the appellee argued.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. IF the Right to Vote is indeed a Right, then it is a RIGHT. That is the same for ALL eligible and properly registered voters. And this is, being able to cast one's vote - until the minute before the polls close in one's assigned precinct. NOT days before by absentee ballot, and NOT 9 miles from one's house (where it might be a burden to get to in time). I personally wait until the last minute to get in line. Because you never know what happens. THAT is my right, and that is Mr. Valenti's. If it is truly so horrible to let him on school grounds (exactly how many children are harmed by those required to register, on school grounds, on election day - seriously!), then move the polling place to a different location. For ALL voters in that precinct. Problem solved.

  2. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  3. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  4. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  5. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

ADVERTISEMENT