ILNews

SCOTUS recusal ruling cited in judicial-canon case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge in Fort Wayne is deciding whether the state's judicial conduct code should be able to restrict judicial candidates from answering surveys about views on issues they might someday hear in court.

Now, a recent ruling from the Supreme Court of the United States is being used in that federal case to delve further into what states should be allowed to do in order to balance free speech with possible perceptions of bias on the bench.

The judicial-speech case is Torrey Bauer, et al. v. Randall T. Shepard, et al., No. 3:08-CV-196, which stems from a survey the non-profit Indiana Right to Life Committee sent to judicial candidates asking them pre-election to state their 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 Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission that warned judicial candidates against making "broad statements on disputed social and legal issues."

But deciding the rule goes too far and infringes on candidates' First and 14th amendments, 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 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 Randall T. Shepard is named as the lead defendant because he chairs the Indiana Judicial Qualifications Commission.

Both sides filed newly amended complaints and responses earlier this year as a result of the state adopting a revised judicial code in January. Both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, and the case remains open pending a summary judgment decision from U.S. District Judge Theresa L Springmann in Fort Wayne.

But in the past week, attorneys have filed briefs citing the June 8 decision of Hugh M. Caperton, et al. v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., No. 08-22, pointing to it as possible authority for the court to consider in its ongoing case. In that landmark 5-4 ruling, the SCOTUS held that elected judges must recuse themselves in cases involving interested parties or litigants who've made large campaign contributions that might create an appearance of bias, because those donations could be perceived to deny litigants of their due process rights.

Counsel for the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission filed a five-page notice of supplemental authority June 18, saying the Caperton decision supports its canons designed to ensure due process through judicial open-mindedness.

On Tuesday, Terre Haute attorney Jim Bopp filed a response on behalf of his clients, saying the case doesn't apply. That SCOTUS ruling applied only to "an exceptional case," and not others such as this case, Bopp wrote. He also noted that a state can adopt as rigorous a recusal standard as it likes, so as long as it doesn't run afoul of the U.S. Constitution.

"Thus, a State could not require judges to recuse themselves in all cases because they belong to a particular political party, nor can they require recusal simply because a judge has announced her views on a disputed legal or political issue," the plaintiffs' response says.

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT