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. Thanks for this article. We live in Evansville, IN and are aware of how bad the child abuse is here. Can you please send us the statistics for here in Vanderburgh, County. Our web site is: www.ritualabusefree.org Thanks again

  2. This ruling has no application to Indiana. The tail end of the article is misleading where it states criminal penalties await those who refuse a test. This is false. An administrative license suspension is what awaits you. No more, no less.

  3. Yellow journalism much??? "The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role." OUTSIZED? by whose standards? Also this: "In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help immigrants a friendlier reception." Ah, also, did you forget an adjective at the *** marks ahead by any chance? Thinking of one that rhymes with bald eagle? " In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help *** immigrants a friendlier reception."

  4. Definition of furnish. : to provide (a room or building) with furniture. : to supply or give (something) to someone or something. : to supply or give to (someone) something that is needed or wanted. Judge Kincaid: if furnish means provide, and the constitution says the provider in a uni is the township, how on earth are they seperated??

  5. I never filed a law suite. I had no money for a lawyer. In 2010 I presented for MRI/with contrast. The technician stuck my left arm three times with needle to inject dye. I was w/out O2 for two minutes, not breathing, no ambulance was called. I suffered an Embolism ,Myocardia infarction. Permanent memory loss, heart damage. After the event, I could not remember what I did five seconds earlier. I had no-one to help me. I lost my dental hygiene career, been homeless, etc.

ADVERTISEMENT