The First Amendment rights of judges are a hot topic these days. <\/p>\n
Just a few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states can bar judicial candidates from soliciting campaign donations without violating their speech rights. <\/p>\n
Across the coast in California, the states highest court has decided that judges there will no longer be allowed to belong to nonprofit youth organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or other criteria, effectively barring membership to the Boy Scouts of America. <\/p>\n
The group wasnt mentioned specifically by name, but the California rule was proposed last year in response to the Boy Scouts policy of excluding gays from staff and leadership roles. After hearing from scores of judges and lawyers, some of whom fiercely opposed it, the California Supreme Court on Friday voted to adopt the rule, which takes effect next year. <\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court case is about the political speech rights of judges, while the California ethics rule deals with limits on free association. But both raise the question of how much First Amendment protection should be granted to judges who have a special duty to be fair and impartial, says Harvard University constitutional scholar Noah Feldmanin acolumn for BloombergView. <\/p>\n
Writes Mr. Feldman: <\/p>\n
For the moment, the Supreme Court would probably uphold the California ban on judges associating with the Boy Scouts, reasoning that judges are special and that the states interest in controlling their behavior is different from its interest in regulating the Scouts. <\/p>\n
Another feature that might conceivably matter is that state judges are also state employees. In last weeks oral argument, the question of state employment arose, with the justices asking whether it made sense for the campaigning activities of sitting state judges to be regulated differently from the campaigning activities of nonincumbent candidates for judicial office. <\/p>\n
Yet if the Supreme Court expands the political speech rights of judges this term, it could be the beginning of the end for state laws that limit judges free association. Then we wouldnt be able to rely on the canons of judicial conduct to create the appearance of fairness. We would have to rely instead on vigilance and common sense, and choose judges who are actually fair and actually dont discriminate. Which doesnt sound so bad after all. <\/p>\n
A spokesperson for the California Supreme Court didnt have a comment in response to Mr. Feldmans column. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
See the article here: The First Amendment rights of judges are a hot topic these days. Just a few days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on whether states can bar judicial candidates from soliciting campaign donations without violating their speech rights. Continue reading
\nFirst Amendment Rights of Judges in the Spotlight<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"