ILNews

Federal judge OKs state's judicial canons

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge says the Indiana Supreme Court can regulate judicial speech through its cannons, and has ruled the existing rules do not violate a judge or judicial candidate's constitutional free speech or association rights.

In a 71-page order issued late Tuesday in Torrey Bauer, et al. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al., No. 3:08-CV-196, U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann in Fort Wayne dismissed a case brought by Indiana Right to Life, which challenged the state's judicial canons on constitutional grounds.

The judicial-speech case stems from a survey the non-profit group sent out last year 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 deciding the canons go too far and infringe on candidates' First and 14th amendment rights, the committee sued in April 2008 on behalf of Torrey Bauer, an attorney who was a candidate for Kosciusko Superior Court, and Marion Superior Judge David Certo, who has since been elected but at the time was a judicial candidate running for the first time after being appointed by the governor in 2007 to fill a vacancy.

Chief Justice Shepard is named as the lead defendant, as he chairs the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission. Parties filed amended complaints and answers earlier this year, focusing the arguments to the revised 2009 judicial code of conduct.

In the nine counts brought against the state judicial commission, the federal judge found the plaintiffs have standing to bring the case but dismissed two counts and entered judgments against the plaintiffs on the other seven. She vacated a 14-month-old preliminary injunction that had stopped the commission from enforcing the canons.

"In this case, the free speech and association rights of judges and judicial candidates, which are protected by the First Amendment, bump into the interests of the people of Indiana in having a judiciary that is independent, fair, impartial, and competent, that is comprised of individuals of integrity and that preserves the principles of justice and the rule of law," Judge Springmann wrote. "As a consequence, the Indiana Supreme Court must carefully balance the various values and interests at stake and narrowly tailor the rules governing the conduct of judges and judicial candidates to serve these interests."

Pointing out that Indiana's high court has repeatedly adjusted the applicable rules and advice throughout the years based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings and other precedent, Judge Springmann found the current code is narrowly tailored to serve the compelling interests in protecting the judiciary's image.

She also found little to support the plaintiffs' claim challenging the disqualification and recusal provisions of the state canons, citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009), to guide her decision and saying that the plaintiffs were "running up hill" in parts of their challenge.

But most significantly, Judge Springmann wrote the canons don't prevent judicial candidates from answering questionnaires like this - that they are permitted to state their views about disputed social and legal issues, as long as they abide by the canons and specific rules governing that.

"The questionnaire could (be) improved with clear assurances that judicial candidate respondents will keep an open mind and carry out their adjudicative duties faithfully and impartially if elected," she observed.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT