ILNews

Judicial free speech before 7th Circuit

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
 

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals will consider arguments Friday on whether sitting and prospective judges should be barred from responding to questionnaires or giving personal views about legal or political issues, and whether state judicial canons can be allowed to restrict that speech.

Circuit judges will hear arguments at 9:30 a.m. Central Time in Indiana Right to Life v. Shepard, et al., No. 4:04-CV-0071, which U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp in Hammond ruled on Nov. 14. Judge Sharp granted a permanent injunction against provisions of the state's Code of Judicial Conduct.

Specifically, the suit involves segments of Canon 3 and 5 that forbid judicial candidates from making "pledges or promises" of conduct in office or statements that "commit or appear to commit" candidates on issues likely to come before them.

Indiana Right to Life had sent a questionnaire to candidates for judicial office in the November 2004 election requesting that they state their views on policies and court decisions related to issues such as assisted suicide and abortion. Several candidates refused, citing advice from the Indiana Judicial Commission on Qualifications that judicial candidates could be disciplined for expressing their views in a response.

The organization later sued, naming Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard as one of 16 defendants in the case - all were members of the state's Commission on Judicial Qualifications and Disciplinary Commission.

The commissions want the 7th Circuit to reverse Judge Sharp's decision. A statement of issues from the appellant's briefs questions whether a political interest group or voter has the standing to challenge the state judicial canons, and whether under First Amendment standards a state can protect due process rights of litigants by prohibiting the judicial speech.

Arguments can viewed online here through the 7th Circuit's Web site, and appellate briefs can be accessed here.
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. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT