ILNews

New conduct code impacts judicial speech case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Fort Wayne wants parties to start over and file new briefs in a challenge to the state's judicial canons, on claims that the rules wrongfully restrict judicial candidates from filling out surveys about their views on issues they might someday hear in court.

U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana issued a four-page order Monday in Torrey Bauer, et al. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al., No. 3:08-CV-196, which had been scheduled to be fully briefed in April.

The judicial-speech case stems from a survey the non-profit Indiana Right to Life Committee sent requesting candidates state their views about policies and court decisions related to abortion, euthanasia, and other issues prior to the primary election. Most declined to reply to the survey, citing an advisory opinion from the Judicial Qualifications Commission warning judicial candidates against making "broad statements on disputed social and legal issues."

Believing the rule goes too far and infringes on candidates' First and 14th Amendment rights, Indiana Right to Life filed the suit almost a year ago on behalf of 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, and is among its seven members.

Terre Haute attorney Jim Bopp Jr. argued that Indiana can still have a rule barring candidates from saying how they would rule on specific cases, but that does not prohibit them from commenting on broader issues.

Accepting that argument in May 2008, Judge Springmann granted a preliminary injunction that stops the state judicial commission from enforcing those rules.

But because the complaint involved a pre-2009 version of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, and has now been revised, the case is effectively moot because that previously cited code no longer has any legal effect. To keep the case alive, the judge wants amended briefs reflecting the current code and whatever legal arguments may apply. Judge Springmann noted that there might not be any differences in the two versions, but that the parties disagree about the effect, meaning, and constitutionality of the current code and that needs to be addressed.

"Because of these problems and unusual procedural posture stemming from the timing and order of the parties' filings, the Court is using its inherent power to control its docket and achieve the orderly disposition of the case to deny the two pending Motions without prejudice because they are moot, vacate the current briefing and ruling schedule, and set a new schedule for pleadings and briefings."

This will allow both sides to have a full opportunity to present their case arguments, Judge Springmann noted.

A status conference is set for Monday, but plaintiffs have until April 6 to file an amended complaint reflecting the 2009 code, and defendants have until April 16 to file an answer. Motions and responses for summary judgment should be filed throughout May. The judge will issue a summary judgment decision by July 1, she said.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT