Last year, in response to Donald Trumps claim that an adverse judicial ruling was wrong because it was issued by an Obama judge, Chief Justice John Roberts replied that the federal judiciary does not consist of Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. Noting the importance of an independent judiciary, Roberts characterized all of his fellow federal jurists as an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
That statement was entirely appropriate andgiven the current Presidents penchant for personal attacks on anyone who criticizes or disagrees with himcourageous. Trump seeks to delegitimize all institutions that challenge him, including Congress, the press, and the courts. He wants Americans to view the exposure of his use of a White House visit and desperately needed defense funds to extort a political favor from Ukraine as simply political opposition by Democrats; he seeks to dismiss factually accurate but unflattering reportage as fake news; and he hopes to discredit court rulings that hold him accountable to the law as the outputs of partisans. Accordingly, Roberts deserved high praise for standing up to Trumps Obama judge line.
Does the Chief Justices view have broader implications? Article IV, Section 3 of the Delaware Constitution requires that that states judiciary be nearly equally balanced between Democrats and Republicans. Lawyer James Adamsa registered independent who wants to be a judge in Delawaresued the governor on the ground that the selection process unconstitutionally conditions a government job on party affiliation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Adams and invalidated the selection procedure. Last week, the Supreme Court granted review of that ruling.
Much of the rhetoric of the Third Circuit opinion echoes Chief Justice Robertss rebuke of Trump. The court quotes the Delaware Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires state judges to be unswayed by partisan interests. It also quotes the Delaware Supreme Court, which has said that state judges must take the law as they find it, and their personal predilections as to what the law should be have no place in efforts to override properly stated legislative will.
If Delaware state court judges are like their federal counterparts in standing outside of partisanship, then the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm the Third Circuits invalidation of Delawares partisan balance requirement, right? Not necessarily. As I explain below, unlike Trumps efforts to delegitimize the judiciary, Delawares recognition of the role of partisan affiliation can and probably should be understood as a permissible means of limiting the role of politics in judicial appointments and judging.
As it comes to the Supreme Court, Carney v. Adams poses a threshold question and a potential remedial question that I shall set aside here. The threshold question is whether Adams has legal standing to challenge part or all of the relevant Delaware constitutional provisions. Should Adams prevail on standing and the merits, his case will pose the further question of how much of the appointment process to invalidate, a question that the Third Circuit deemed one of severability.
On the merits, the case appears to fall within a line of Supreme Court cases that limit states ability to use the so-called spoils system under which plum government jobs are reserved for members of the party in power. In 1976 in Elrod v. Burns, the Supreme Court held that treating government jobs as patronage typically violates the First Amendment right of expressive association. The core logic of Elrod and the later cases is simple: Affiliating with a political party is a form of political speech; hence, reserving jobs for people who affiliate with a particular party is a viewpoint-based restriction on speech and therefore presumptively unconstitutional.
The Supreme Courts patronage-limiting cases recognize an exception for so-called policymaking positions. Delaware Governor John Carneys brief in support of Supreme Court review and the briefs of supporting amici argue that judges are policy makers, so the exception applies here.
The Third Circuit rejected that argument. That court said that while policy considerations can figure into judicial decisions, they do not play the right kind of role to count for the policymaking exception. The exception is justified by the fact that a governor (or President in the federal system) needs people in top positionspolicymaking positionswho support the governors (or Presidents) own policy priorities. Thus, it does not violate the First Amendment for a Republican governor (or President) to require that top lieutenants be Republicans. However, the Third Circuit went on to explain, judges do not carry out anyone elses political or other agenda. On the contrary, once on the bench, they are supposed to be independent.
Governor Carney and his supporting amici counter that the policymaking exception to the Elrod line of cases has a broader rationale. A brief by law professors in support of the governor notes that in many areas of the law, judges have substantial room to give effect to their policy views, and that this is especially true in Delaware, where the courts make corporate law that typically has nationwide effect. Party affiliation, this brief and others say, is a fair proxy for policy views, which are surely relevant to considering who should be a judge.
The Supreme Court could reverse the Third Circuits ruling based on the notion that the policymaking exception extends beyond officials answerable to the head of the executive branch. It could also reverse the judgment based on a different rationale. Regulations of free speech can be upheld where they are narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. Governor Carney argues that Delawares partisan-balance rule serves the compelling interest in promoting the appearance and reality of an impartial judiciary. A similar rationale might be offered for partisan-balance rules applicable to various federal agencies, including the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, the Commission on Civil Rights, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Election Commission.
The Third Circuit opinion expressed skepticism about whether partisan balance is a compelling interest with respect to the state judiciary. However, that court assumed without deciding that it is and rejected the partisan balance rationale for a different reason. According to the Third Circuit, the Delaware selection provision is not narrowly tailored to advance the goal of impartiality because there is no need to exclude political independents.
In sum, the Supreme Court could reverse the Third Circuit on any of three main grounds. First, it could find that Adams lacked standing. Even if Adams has standing, the Court could find, second, that the policymaking exception to the First Amendments bar on political patronage is broad enough to cover judges. Third, even if the Court rules against Governor Carney on both of those grounds, it could find that the interest in partisan balance is both compelling and necessarily excludes extreme views that do not fall within one of the two major parties in what is, after all, a two-party system.
I wont hazard a prediction regarding any of the possible grounds for reversal. Instead, Ill conclude by noting that Carney v. Adams implicates a profound question.
Any minimally sophisticated observer of the courts understands that party affiliation is a fair proxy for policy views, which play a substantial role in a judges decision in the sorts of contested cases that lead to appellate litigation. Accordingly, President Trump was not entirely wrong to refer to an Obama judge. After all, journalists frequently identify the President who appointed a judge involved in an important ruling as a signal to readers of the likely ideological lean of that judge.
At the same time, however, too-frequent or too-ready identification of judges with political parties is both inaccurate and destructive. It is inaccurate because nearly all judges try in good faith to follow the law, and often the law is sufficiently determinate to afford no room for resolving cases based on their ideological druthers. That is largely what Chief Justice Roberts meant when he criticized the Presidents reference to an Obama judge.
The Chief Justice also sought to undercut a potentially dangerous implication of Trumps statement: If the public comes to see the courts as no different from political actors like legislators and governors, that itself will undercut the rule of law. Indeed, one suspects that Trump refers to judges whose rulings he dislikes by political affiliation for the precise purpose of undercutting the courts as a check on his own power. Yet if Trump acts in bad faith, is there no way for good-faith lawmakers like those who wrote the Delaware constitutional provisions at issue in Carney v. Adams to take account of the political element of judging?
The Third Circuit thought not. Concurring, Judge McKee acknowledged that the challenged provisions were enacted to ensure selection of a judiciary whose political balance would serve notice that judicial decisions were devoid of politics and political motivations but nonetheless concluded that by elevating ones political affiliation to a condition precedent to eligibility for appointment to the bench by the Governor, Delaware has institutionalized the role of political affiliation rather than negated it.
Maybe thats right, but only if one assumes that the People cannot handle the truth. It should be possible for a state to act on the undeniable reality that judging is not completely separate from politics without leading the People to believe that, as Trump and other would-be dictators would have them believe, law is nothing other than politics.
Excerpt from:
If There Are No Obama Judges or Trump Judges, Does the Constitution Permit Delaware to - Justia Verdict
- Senate Passes TikTok Ban Bill, Setting Up Legal Battle Between App and U.S. on First Amendment Issues - Variety - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- How the TikTok ban could survive a court challenge - Platformer - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Senate Passes TikTok Ban Bill, Setting Up Legal Battle Between App and U.S. on First Amendment Issues - AOL - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Eighth Circuit Affirms Denial of Qualified Immunity to Mayor and Police Chief of Missouri City in First Amendment ... - Law.com - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Get the Facts: How far does the First Amendment go? - WMTW Portland - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Say 'Yes' to the First Amendment Minding The Campus - Minding The Campus - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Civics lesson: First Amendment rights are broad, but there are limits - Tennessean - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- SCOTUS won't review decision that ratchets up legal risk at protests - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- NPR Against the First Amendment - The New York Sun - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- NPR boss once called the First Amendment a 'challenge' and 'reverence for the truth' a distraction - Fox News - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Here are the winners of the inaugural Poynter Journalism Prizes - Poynter - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Can Congress actually ban TikTok? - Vox.com - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- New Stablecoin Bill Faces Criticism for Stifling Innovation and Breaching First Amendment Regulation Bitcoin News - Bitcoin.com News - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk's Plan To Fund National Signature Campaign In Support Of First Amendment Met With Praise - Yahoo! Voices - April 24th, 2024 [April 24th, 2024]
- Trump: First Amendment protects efforts to overturn election - USA TODAY - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- To Fight Ban Bill, TikTok's Best Hopes Lie in First Amendment Challenge - The Information - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Supreme Court must rely on the First Amendment, not its own precedent, when deciding government censorship case - Washington Examiner - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION?: Man removed from Cape council meeting files lawsuit - FOX 4 News Fort Myers WFTX - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump team's First Amendment argument is 'so weak' in Georgia election interference case - MSNBC - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - The Associated Press - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- A national TikTok ban and the First Amendment - National Constitution Center - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump attorney says Georgia election case hinges on First Amendment Deseret News - Deseret News - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - The Atlanta Journal Constitution - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Courts Should Affirm First Amendment Rights of Youths in the Digital Age: The Case for a 21stCentury Tinker - Cato Institute - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump legal news brief: Prosecutors tell Judge McAfee that First Amendment doesn't apply to Trump's 'criminal intentions' - Yahoo! Voices - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump attorney tries to have Georgia case dismissed on First Amendment grounds - MSNBC - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump attorney, prosecutors spar over move to have Georgia case dismissed on First Amendment grounds - 11Alive.com WXIA - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Donald Trump Georgia court motions hearing today live stream - 11Alive.com WXIA - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - Bowling Green Daily News - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- First Amendment protects Trump from Fani Williss election interference charges, attorney argues - Washington Examiner - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Judicial Rulemaking and Lucidity: Justice Barrett's First Amendment Opinion in Lindke v. Freed - American Enterprise Institute - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- First Amendment protects Trump from Fani Willis's election interference charges, attorney argues - Colorado Springs Gazette - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting election interference charges - Southernminn.com - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - messenger-inquirer - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Lawyers for the State argue against Trump First Amendment challenge in Georgia case - 11Alive.com WXIA - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- OPINION: The possible TikTok ban is an infringement on our First Amendment rights - The Suffolk Journal - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's team cites First Amendment in contesting charges in Georgia election interference case - Times Daily - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- An iPhone, YouTube & the First Amendment: Man in St Louis tests boundaries of constitution through videos - First Alert 4 - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Lawyer argues Georgia election RICO case against Trump be dismissed over First Amendment - 11Alive.com WXIA - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Abridging, Not Coercing, Is The First Amendment's Yardstick for Speech Violations - Reason - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Judge hears Trump's First Amendment challenge to Georgia charges: Watch live - Yahoo Singapore News - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Trump's attorney says election inference case should be thrown out over 1st Amendment protections - Yahoo! Voices - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Judge hears Trump's First Amendment challenge to Georgia charges: Watch live - AOL - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Judge sets new hearing date in 2020 Georgia election interference case - 11Alive.com WXIA - March 29th, 2024 [March 29th, 2024]
- Biden Wants To Avoid a First Amendment Showdown Over WikiLeaks - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson raises eyebrows with comment that First Amendment 'hamstrings' government - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- West Texas drag show becomes a First Amendment battleground - The Texas Tribune - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - The Associated Press - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, and Substantial Encouragement - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- News/Media Alliance Joins Brief Defending First Amendment Editorial Rights of Documentarians - News/Media Alliance - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The State of the First Amendment: Free Speech - University of Colorado Boulder - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justices Seem Likely to Side With N.R.A. in First Amendment Dispute - The New York Times - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh loses patience with the judiciarys far right - Vox.com - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Jackson ripped for worrying about the First Amendment 'hamstringing' government: 'Literally the point' - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Analysis: SCOTUS Oral Arguments Bode Well For NRA First Amendment Claim [Member Exclusive] - The Reload - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear First Amendment challenge to New York's financial 'blacklisting' of NRA - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- NRA Goes To The Supreme Court Today In First Amendment CaseHere's What To Know - Forbes - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear case of former Castle Hills councilwoman who claims First Amendment rights were violated - KSAT San Antonio - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear arguments in key First Amendment case challenging Biden admin teamwork with Big Tech - Fox News - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- "Black Lives Mat[t]er" + "Any Life" Drawing "Not Protected by the First Amendment" in First Grade - Reason - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - KXLY Spokane - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court hears free speech case that united the NRA and the ACLU - The Washington Post - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Supreme Court Wary of States' Bid to Limit Federal Contact With Social Media Companies - The New York Times - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Opinion: A First Amendment Fizzle at the U.S. Supreme Court - The Atlanta Journal Constitution - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment is under attack in Americas Oceania - Washington Examiner - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Education Institutions Grapple With Overlap of First Amendment and Anti-Discrimination Laws - JD Supra - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - The Caledonian-Record - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Note to Justice Jackson: First Amendment Should Hamstring Biden - Daily Signal - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Requiring ugly images of smoking's harm on cigarettes won't breach First Amendment, court says - KEYT - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- The First Amendment Supreme Court case right wingers are crazy for - The Independent - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Ketanji Brown Jackson concerned First Amendment is hamstringing government from censorship - Washington Examiner - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Justice Jackson: First Amendment "Hamstringing" Federal Response To "Threatening Circumstances, From The ... - RealClearPolitics - March 22nd, 2024 [March 22nd, 2024]
- Opinion: Sen. Chuck Grassley should stand up for the First Amendment and support the PRESS Act - The Gazette - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- The Supreme Court must protect the First Amendment in Murthy v. Missouri - Washington Examiner - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- A Hillsborough judge invokes the First Amendment in a case related to a 2022 election campaign - WMNF - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- John Stockton's lawyer claims first amendment violation as basis for COVID-19 lawsuit - KXLY Spokane - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Scientology Scores A First Amendment Win Over Leah Remini, But Harassment Claims Against Church Still Stand, Judge Rules - Deadline - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Supreme Court to hear First Amendment cases, weigh in on Texas immigration law - MSN - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- 7 Expert Takeaways As the Supreme Court Considers Government Influence on Content Moderation - Just Security - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]
- Conflict between First Amendment and discrimination on Broadway | Strictly Legal - The Cincinnati Enquirer - March 18th, 2024 [March 18th, 2024]