ILNews

Circuit Court split on rehearing judicial canons case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana’s two federal appeals judges disagree about whether the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals should reconsider a Wisconsin case about the judicial code of conduct in that state, paving the way for a further battle before the nation’s highest court that could influence Indiana’s judicial canons.

What happens with this case may set the stage for what ultimately happens with a similar suit out of Indiana, in which a three-judge 7th Circuit panel recently upheld the state’s judicial canons and found they didn’t infringe upon constitutional free speech rights.

A per curiam decision came today in The Hon. John Siefert v. James C. Alexander, et al., No. 09-1713, in which a majority of the 10 active Circuit judges decided not to grant a rehearing en banc. Chief Judge Frank Easterbrook and Judges Joel Flaum, Michael Kanne, Richard Posner, and John Tinder opted against rehearing. Judges David Hamilton, Illana Rovner, Ann Williams, and Diane Wood voted for the full court to rehear the appeal. Judge Diane Sykes didn’t participate, and one of the active seats remains vacant.

In June, the three-judge panel of Judges Flaum, Rovner, and Tinder issued a 2-1 ruling in Siefert v. Alexander, 608 F.3fd 974 (7th Circuit 2010). Judge Rovner had dissented from the ruling, which simultaneously held that Wisconsin couldn’t prevent judges from being members of political parties but it could restrict partisan activities such as endorsing non-judicial candidates 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 free speech issues 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.

On Aug. 20, a 7th Circuit panel relied on the Siefert decision in its ruling on Torrey Bauer, David Certo, and Indiana Right to Life v. Randall T. Shepard, et al., No. 09-2963, which affirmed a judgment from U.S. Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana dismissing the judicial canons suit.

Dissenting today, Judge Rovner wrote on behalf of the dissenting judges that the 7th Circuit appears to be an outlier on these issues nationally and that recently the 6th and 8th Circuits have struck down as unconstitutional state statutes restricting First Amendment rights of judges and judicial canons.

“Our divergent opinions on this issue is an outlier and should be reheard en banc,” she wrote.

Terre Haute attorney Jim Bopp, who represented the plaintiff and also represents the Indiana plaintiffs in the Bauer case, couldn’t be immediately reached today to comment on this ruling or whether he’ll file a writ of certiorari to the SCOTUS.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT