Brennan Center for Justice

Chief Justice Role Has Expanded Greatly Over the Years
In a New York Times piece, Linda Greenhouse argues that the time is ripe for a discussion about the expanding role and responsibilities of the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Greenhouse notes, “The office of Chief Justice of the United States has grown enormously in recent decades in responsibility and complexity – not because of power-grabbing chief justices but because Congress has piled onto the office a large number of added responsibilities.” Chief Justice John Robert’s central role in selecting Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges has drawn recent attention to the duties of the chief justice, but beyond this one high-profile responsibility, the chief justice’s role has been expanding in many other capacities. According to the article, “Congress has, for example, instructed the chief justice to choose the seven members of the judicial panel that consolidates mass tort cases and chooses which court to send them to for trial...The chief justice also chooses the five judges who make up the Alien Terrorist Removal Court…These extra duties are in addition to serving as the head of a branch of government consisting of some 2,000 judges and many thousands of other employees, a complex bureaucracy with its own turf battles and sometimes toxic internal politics.” Given this long, non-exhaustive list of duties, Greenhouse wonders how much of the chief justice’s time is spent working on cases. “Assuming a chief justice’s day has only 24 hours, the actual work of judging must account for just a fraction of a normal workweek.”
Sources: Linda Greenhouse, Too Much Work?, New York Times, August 7, 2013; Charlie Savage, Roberts’s Picks Reshaping Secret Surveillance Court, New York Times, July 25, 2013.

INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY

Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board to Investigate National Organization for Marriage
The Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board will investigate allegations that the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) violated state law in connection with its campaign spending in the 2010 and 2012 Iowa Supreme Court retention races, by failing to disclose the names of its donors. According to a Quad-City Times article, “In documents filed with the board, National Organization for Marriage representative Joseph Vanderhulst of the Indiana-based ACT Right Legal Foundation called [the] allegations [of impropriety] ‘baseless’ and ‘erroneous,’ contended the organization has not violated the campaign finance laws of Iowa or any other states and correctly reported its activities related to Iowa judicial retention elections in 2010 and 2012.” The Disclosure Board, which voted 6-0 to proceed with the investigation, has not yet declared that NOM broke any laws. However, Megan Tooker, the Board’s executive director, reportedly “told the six-member panel…that the organization's [NOM] claims that the donors’ names could be kept secret and other contentions about Iowa’s campaign disclosure laws were ‘absolutely false.’” The probe “could result in civil disciplinary action that could range up to a public reprimand or fines of up to $2,000 per violation if the panel decides that the organization failed to follow state campaign laws.” Former lieutenant governors Sally Pederson and Joy Corning also weighed in on the controversy last week, calling for an investigation. Pederson and Corning argue, “There is no question that donations will continue to pour into our state, but unless we discover definitively whether the law was broken, Iowa will be open for business to any group that wants to use its limitless campaign funds to influence our courts.”
Sources: Sally Pederson and Joy Corning, Iowa View: Judicial-retention spending deserves a closer look, Des Moines Register, August 6, 2013; Rod Boshart, Ethics panel to probe marriage group’s campaign activities in Iowa, Quad-City Times, August 8, 2013.

North Carolina Bar Association Urges Governor to Veto Judicial Disciplinary Bill
Twenty-nine past presidents of the North Carolina Bar Association sent a letter to Governor Pat McCrory last week, urging him to veto a bill that would change disciplinary procedures for judges in the state, according to an editorial in the Charlotte Observer. The editorial states that House Bill 652 “makes private certain proceedings against judges that are currently public…takes away the Judicial Standards Commission’s ability to publicly reprimand judges and gives Supreme Court justices all power over disciplining judges…[and] forces Supreme Court justices to pass judgment on a Supreme Court colleague if one is accused of wrongdoing.” Reporting for the Charlotte Observer, author Michael Gordon writes, “The bill’s supporters, which includes most Republicans in the General Assembly, say it streamlines certain procedures and puts more disciplinary authority where it belongs, with the Supreme Court. That includes giving the state’s high court authority to punish its own members.” Critics of the bill argue that it will hinder the transparency of North Carolina courts. In a WRAL.com article, Alan Duncan, president of the North Carolina Bar Association, said, “We feel, as an organization, it is important to stand up for transparency, on behalf of the profession, and more importantly on behalf [of] the citizens of North Carolina. It is the belief of the Bar Association that the existing system has worked well and that this legislation is not necessary.”
Sources: When judges go bad, transparency is key, Charlotte Observer, August 9, 2013; Michael Gordon, N.C. lawyers opposes increased secrecy in disciplining judges, Charlotte Observer, August 9, 2013; Matthew Burns and Laura Leslie, Bar Association calls for veto of judicial discipline bill, WRAL.com, August 6, 2013.

Fair Courts Litigation Task Force Launched
Last week marked the launch of the Fair Courts Litigation Task Force, a new website created to track litigation that could have an impact on the fairness of our courts. A joint effort of the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, the National Center for State Courts, Justice at Stake, and the American Judicature Society, the website “serves as a clearinghouse of litigation from across the U.S. that either challenges or supports ethical rules aimed at keeping our judiciary free from partisan politics and outside influences. These include the financing of judicial elections, judicial campaign conduct rules, merit selection of judges, and rules governing the recusal of judges from cases.” Matt Menendez, counsel at the Brennan Center, explains, “Fair and impartial courts are the guarantor of equal justice in American democracy. Monitoring litigation impacting our judiciary will enable us to determine where reforms are needed and when the independence of our courts is at risk.”
Sources: Fair Courts Litigation Task Force, http://www.faircourtslitigation.org/; Groups Launch Litigation Clearing House Aimed at Keeping Courts Fair and Impartial, Justice at Stake, August 8, 2013.