ILNews

7th Circuit upholds Indiana's judicial canons

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At a time when the legal community is caught up in controversies about how judges are selected and whether they can remain impartial, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has weighed in on that national debate and ruled that states have the authority to self-regulate on those issues as it relates to judicial canons.

With that, a three-judge appellate panel on Aug. 20 upheld Indiana’s judicial canons and found they aren’t unconstitutionally restrictive of free speech.

In Torrey Bauer, David Certo, and Indiana Right to Life v. Randall T. Shepard, et al. No. 09-2963, the panel affirmed a late 2008 ruling by U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana that had dismissed the judicial speech case that challenged various parts of the state canons. This case stems from a survey the non-profit group Indiana Right to Life sent to judicial candidates before the election, asking them to state views about policies and court decisions related to abortion, euthanasia, and other issues. Most declined to reply to the survey, citing an advisory opinion from the Judicial Qualifications Commission that warned judicial candidates against making “broad statements on disputed social and legal issues.” But some expressed hesitancy to do so because of the judicial canons.

In an April 2008 suit, the group sued on behalf of Torrey Bauer, an attorney who was a candidate for Kosciusko Superior Court, and Marion Superior Judge David Certo, who at the time was running in that election following his appointment to fill a vacancy.

Specifically, the case involves four conduct code provisions: one that prohibits judges and candidates from making comments that are inconsistent with judicial impartiality; one that requires recusal when impartiality might be reasonably questioned; a third that limits political activities of Indiana’s judges; and a fourth that limits fundraising activities.

Judge Springmann ruled that the Indiana Supreme Court can regulate judicial speech through its canons, and that existing rules don’t violate a judge or judicial candidate’s constitutional free speech or association rights. She’d decided that the original suit challenging the pre-2009 conduct rules was moot.

In upholding the District judge’s ruling, the appellate panel made one minor modification to her judgment: dismissing the case as unripe, rather than moot, in regard to the 2008 version of the judicial canons. Everything else remains intact.

The panel relied on its spring decision in the Wisconsin case of Siefert v. Alexander, 608 F.3fd 974 (7th Circuit 2010), which simultaneously held that the state couldn’t prevent judges from being members of political parties but it could restrict partisan activities such as endorsing a non-judicial candidate or personal fundraising. That decision relied heavily on the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), regarding that free-speech issue in relation to judicial elections and campaigns, as well as the more recent ruling last year in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252, 2266-67 (2009), and how newer lines of litigation have delved into subtopics.

“The judicial system depends on its reputation for impartiality; it is public acceptance, rather than the sword or the purse, that leads decisions to be obeyed and averts vigilantism and civil strife,” Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote. “Unless a judge who speaks on behalf of a party, or serves as a party’s officer, recuses in all of these cases – which is to say, almost every case that comes before a court – the public would have good reason to believe that the judge is deciding according to the party’s platform rather than the rule of law. Allowing judges to participate in politics would poison the reputation of the whole judiciary, and seriously impair public confidence, without which the judiciary cannot function.”

A large aspect of the 7th Circuit ruling points to the national division on this issue, which could pave the way for additional litigation and appeals.

“Nothing we can do here could create harmony among the circuits, so there is no reason to depart from the approach taken so recently in this circuit,” Chief Judge Easterbrook wrote in the 29-page opinion.

Though judges are not allowed to commit or promise actions, they aren’t prohibited from voicing general opinions or stances about particular issues as long as they don’t discuss their behavior in office, the panel said, noting that conduct not allowed might include judicial candidates saying they’d award damages against drug companies or give all drunk drivers harsh sentences.

The 7th Circuit declined to strike down the canons as a whole even if they contain ambiguity about what “impartiality” means, deciding instead to give the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission and Supreme Court a chance to clarify various issues as they are raised.
 

George Patton Patton

Representing the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission, attorney George T. Patton at the Washington, D.C., office of Bose McKinney & Evans called the ruling a decisive victory not only for Indiana’s judiciary but for the entire nation.

“This is a tour de force ruling that’s a great win for Indiana,” he said. “This strongly upholds judicial canons and the commission gets broad guidance on how it can ensure an impartial judiciary. This opinion is a clarion call for that, and in my opinion this is the best single federal Court of Appeals opinion on this across the nation.”
 

Jim Bopp Bopp

A week after the ruling, Terre Haute attorney James Bopp for Indiana Right To Life said a decision hadn’t yet been made about the next step in this litigation – whether he would seek a rehearing en banc before the full 7th Circuit or possibly file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

But he dismissed the 7th Circuit’s findings as going against the mainstream of what other federal courts have done on these issues.

“While they purport to protect the First Amendment, they are also saying it doesn’t apply when you’re talking about this case,” Bopp said. “I don’t understand how this is consistent with the First Amendment applying and protecting judicial campaigns when in the face of that, (Indiana) can prohibit ordinary campaign practices such as judges asking for money.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT