PRESS RELEASE
Tuesday, June 1, 2004
Contact: James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel
Phone 812/232-2434; Fax 812/235-3685
jboppjr@aol.com, www.jamesmadisoncenter.org

 

Entire U.S. Court of Appeals for Eighth Circuit
Agrees To Review Challenge to Minnesota Judicial Canons
 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has agreed to en banc review of a series of challenges to Minnesota's Code of Judicial Conduct in light of the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002).  The full Eighth Circuit will consider whether Minnesota's restrictions on judicial candidates' partisan political activities and on  personal solicitation of campaign funds and support can survive in the wake of the White Court's  reasoning and holding.  In White, the Supreme Court held Minnesota's  rule forbidding any candidate for elective judicial office from "announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues" violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 

On remand to the Eighth Circuit in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in White, a three-judge panel considered other Minnesota rules that  had been challenged by the White plaintiffs, but had not been directly before the Supreme Court.  The panel upheld the canon forbidding  from personally soliciting or accepting campaign contributions or publicly stated support.  It sent the case back to the trial court with instructions to reconsider in light of White its earlier decision upholding  Minnesota  canons forbidding judicial candidates from attending political organization gatherings, from seeking, accepting, or using political endorsements, from speaking on their own behalf to political organization gatherings, and from identifying themselves as members of a political organization.   See Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 361 F.3d 1035 (3d Cir. 2004).  A strong dissent in the 2-1 decision was filed by Judge Alren Beam arguing that all these challenged judicial canons should be held unconstitutional under White. 

Plaintiffs in the case then petitioned all the judges on the Eighth Circuit to hear the case, and the court agreed to do so, setting oral arguments for sometime in the third week of October of 2004.

The General Counsel of the James Madison Center,  James Bopp, Jr.,  represents several plaintiffs in the case.  According to Bopp,  "The Eighth Circuit only rarely sits as a full court to rehear cases.  All the challenged provisions should have been held to violate the First Amendment in light of White, and this provides the full court to correct the errors of two of its judges."  Bopp commented, "It makes no sense to find a canon that forbids judicial candidates from announcing their view unconstitutional, but let stand  provisions that forbid candidates from even attending political gatherings or letting people know that they are members of a particular political organization.  The people have a right to hear from their elective candidates, including candidates for judicial office." 

According to Bopp, 39 states have some form of election for their judges, and many of these states have rules governing judicial candidates' conduct similar to Minnesota's.  "The Eighth Circuit's decision will have a far-reaching impact on how many, if not all, of these states conduct their judicial elections," said Bopp.

To unsubscribe from the James Madison Center for Free Speech e-mail list, please send an e-mail message with "UNSUBSCRIBE" as the subject to: cbostrom@bopplaw.com