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.
- Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Judge rules lawsuit alleging Trump threatened free press can move forward | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Trumps Coronavirus Briefings Are a Ratings Hit. Should Networks Cover Them? - The New York Times - March 26th, 2020
- Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude - SCOTUSblog - March 26th, 2020
- Donald Trump Must Face First Amendment Suit for Revoking Press Badges - Hollywood Reporter - March 25th, 2020
- Robbins: Freedom of worship and the strange case of Warder Cresson - Vail Daily News - March 25th, 2020
- MuzzleWatch: Breaking down the legal attack against the BDS movement - Mondoweiss - March 25th, 2020
- Coronavirus in Arizona: Mayors, cities can't close parks, essentials without going through Governor Ducey - ABC15 Arizona - March 25th, 2020
- Misplaced outrage over who attends a White House press conference | TheHill - The Hill - March 25th, 2020
- Donald Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter, Appeals Court Affirms - Variety - March 24th, 2020
- Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh's account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for... - Firstpost - March 24th, 2020
- Keep Federal COVID-19 Package Focused on the Virus and Its Effects - Mackinac Center for Public Policy - March 24th, 2020
- WEHOville Asks John Duran to Stop Blocking It and WeHo Residents on Social Media - WEHOville - March 24th, 2020
- Letter: Government actions going too far on virus - Grand Forks Herald - March 24th, 2020
- First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms ... - March 19th, 2020
- The First Amendment, a Philosophy Professor, and Pronouns - Daily Nous - March 19th, 2020
- Sunshine Week: It's always your right to know - The Highland County Press - March 19th, 2020
- Relist Watch in the Time of Cholera - SCOTUSblog - March 19th, 2020
- Obey the Law - Justia Verdict - March 19th, 2020
- Transparency is transforming | Columns - Weatherford Democrat - March 19th, 2020
- NIST shared dataset of tattoos thats been used to identify prisoners - Naked Security - March 19th, 2020
- PATRIOT Act Morass: Gains and Stalled Reforms - Project On Government Oversight - March 19th, 2020
- COVID-19: Press Freedom and Government Transparency - RCFP - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 19th, 2020
- Trump Isn't the First President to Attack the Press - The Nation - March 19th, 2020
- Rat spotted in Vancouver, Washington - Nwlaborpress - March 19th, 2020
- The Cyberlaw Podcast: Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Lawfare - March 5th, 2020
- The University's First Amendment Rights | Leadership in Higher Education - Inside Higher Ed - March 5th, 2020
- Sen. Blumenthal to receive the First Amendment Defender Award - WTNH.com - March 5th, 2020
- Will the First Amendment Kill Free Speech in America? - Reason - March 5th, 2020
- Donald Trump And Charles Harder Continue Their Assault On The 1st Amendment, Suing The Washington Post - Techdirt - March 5th, 2020
- Do Non-Lawmakers Have A First Amendment Right To Speak Before A Legislative Body? Its A Question In Texas After A Man Testified Wearing A Profane... - March 5th, 2020
- Guest Column: On the 1st Amendment and restrictive resolutions - Oak Ridger - March 5th, 2020
- Sen. Ron Wyden, Rep. Ro Khanna introduce bill to reform Espionage Act - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 5th, 2020
- Cuellar holds off primary challenge, and other late calls - Politico - March 5th, 2020
- San Francisco expected to pay $369,000 settlement to Bryan Carmody - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - March 5th, 2020
- EARN IT Act: Instant Reaction - Morning Consult - March 5th, 2020
- Judge: Hearings for Fauquier teen charged in fatal family shootings will remain closed - Fauquier Times - March 5th, 2020
- 'Second Amendment Preservation Bill' Passes Wyoming Committee - Kgab - March 5th, 2020
- Bloomberg Slayed the Myth That Money Buys Elections - National Review - March 5th, 2020
- Negligible 'Never Bernie' - National Review - March 5th, 2020
- Stars and Stripes and the First Amendment - Columbia Journalism Review - February 15th, 2020
- New Graphic Tobacco Warnings and the First Amendment - Newswise - February 15th, 2020
- COMMENTARY: Focus on when the First Amendment protects ... and when it doesn't - Crow River Media - February 15th, 2020
- Its Illegal to Take Drone Photos of Cattle Feedlots in Texas. Press Groups Say That Violates the First Amendment. - The Texas Observer - February 15th, 2020
- FIRST FIVE: Focus on when the First Amendment protects and doesn't - hays Post - February 15th, 2020
- Amend the Hatch Act and Restore Federal Workers' First Amendment Rights - FedSmith.com - February 15th, 2020
- Our View: Be more inclusive for all holy days - The Register-Guard - February 15th, 2020
- How to save journalism - The Boston Globe - February 15th, 2020
- Pelosi, a Ripped Speech, and the Records Debate - FactCheck.org - February 15th, 2020
- Can the Constitution stop the government from lying to the public? - The Fulcrum - February 15th, 2020
- ZACHARY: First Amendment advocates warn of media oversight - Tifton Gazette - January 27th, 2020
- Letters mis-stating the First Amendment and Trump flags - Villages-News - January 27th, 2020
- Witness to the PERSECUTION | Columns | Journal Gazette - Fort Wayne Journal Gazette - January 27th, 2020
- Other voices: Money, speech and truth - St. Paul Pioneer Press - January 27th, 2020
- Over the line in comedy | My View - Santa Fe New Mexican - January 27th, 2020
- Social Studies in the real world: Raceland teacher takes his class on field trip to fiscal court - The Independent - January 27th, 2020
- Reporters Face New Threats From the Governments They Cover - The New York Times - January 27th, 2020
- The First Amendment and Supreme Court | Opinion | dailyitem.com - Sunbury Daily Item - January 25th, 2020
- President Trump Restores the Original Intent of the First Amendment - CNSNews.com - January 25th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor: Supporting the We the People Amendment - Wicked Local - January 25th, 2020
- Gazette opinion: Senate restrictions are an insult to First Amendment - KPVI News 6 - January 25th, 2020
- Could Trump Muzzle John Bolton? The Limits of Executive Privilege, Explained - The New York Times - January 25th, 2020
- Throwback Thursday: The First Amendment's Freedom of Assembly in Action in Nutley NJ - TAPinto.net - January 24th, 2020
- It Violates the First Amendment to Criminalize Immigration Advocacy or Giving Advice to Illegal Immigrants - Cato Institute - January 24th, 2020
- Shattering the First Amendment - The Riverdale Press - January 24th, 2020
- The Unacknowledged Clash Between the Supreme Courts Interpretation of the Religion Clauses and the - Justia Verdict - January 24th, 2020
- Guest column: First Amendment on the docket at the Supreme Court - The Mercury - January 24th, 2020
- City of Scottsdale and The Satanic Temple take the stands in First Amendment-based case - FOX 10 News Phoenix - January 24th, 2020
- Hearing Wednesday: EFF Urges Court To Rule That Blogger's Opinion of Open Source Licensing Agreement is Protected by the First Amendment - EFF - January 24th, 2020
- Choice in education could have impact on 2020 vote - Boston Herald - January 24th, 2020
- GOP candidates outline platforms in their first 14th District debate - Northwest Herald - January 24th, 2020
- HB 2093 Introduced to Nullify Any Violation of 2nd Amendment Laws - Prescott eNews - January 24th, 2020
- Salman Rushdie, Jonathan Franzen, Amy Tan and Over 160 More Call for Babson Adjunct Professor to Be Reinstated - Boston magazine - January 24th, 2020
- AG Ferguson leads multistate lawsuit over new Trump Administration effort to allow release of 3D-printed guns - Access Washington - January 24th, 2020
- Lobby Day attracts 2A advocates from the NRV and beyond - Southwest Times - January 24th, 2020
- Op-ed: Did the University forget about the first amendment? - The Michigan Daily - January 18th, 2020
- Facebooks Soleimani Ban Flies in Face of First Amendment - Common Dreams - January 18th, 2020
- Trump Takes Steps to Protect the Right to Pray in Schools - CNSNews.com - January 18th, 2020
- Breaking down the first amendment lawsuit against Florida State Representative Spencer Roach - Fox 4 - January 18th, 2020
- 10 years later, Americans stand opposed to Citizens United | TheHill - The Hill - January 18th, 2020