Comparing judicial conduct commissions across the country is just a click, tap, or keystroke away, thanks to a new online resource from NCSC’s Center for Judicial Ethics.

This interactive resource helps court leaders, policymakers, and the public examine how commissions operate, including how they conduct their proceedings and what types of sanctions they order or recommend.

The tool organizes data from all 50 states and Washington, D.C., into key categories:

• Composition of Judicial Conduct Commissions
• When Confidentiality Ceases in Formal Judicial Discipline Proceedings
• Private Dispositions or Sanctions
• Public Sanctions
• Private, Informal, and Public Dispositions

To some the idea of the Supreme Court of Canada deciding to “go on the road” may not seem startling. Many state Supreme Courts hold arguments in high schools and law schools. But this is a big step for the Supreme Court of Canada.

At a public forum in Victoria hosted by the Supreme Court of Canada, to open the doors to its work, a woman in the audience asked a question about the roiling politics in the United States and the ability of Canada’s justice system to uphold human rights in perilous times.

Chief Justice Richard Wagner delivered an impassioned response – with a touch of comic timing.

“We should be optimistic for the future of Canada,” he said. “I’ll tell you why. First of all, we have a strong democracy.” He then detailed how the judicial system is impartial and independent of the churn of politics – “which might be,” he said with deliberate effect, “different from other countries.”

The chief justice paused – and the audience let out a hearty laugh.

The Supreme Court this year marks its 150th anniversary. Justices are visiting five cities across the country, starting in Victoria and concluding in November in Thunder Bay, Ont.=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/gift/18143e98f4dcd3aa1c82d38f258fdde2aed9f760b44117a6f901fb9886d77759/ZIRQCD72VVG6BI52S2JDDTSWWI/

The vast majority of judges will never confront the challenge of dealing with the death penalty. And so A new study confirms racial and sentencing disparities in capital cases which “.. found that prosecutors were significantly more likely to seek death against defendants who kill white victims, and that juries were significantly more likely to sentence those defendants to death.”  might not seem relevant. JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES. But perhaps there is a larger message behind the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies finding: if it happens in death penalty cases what about the kind of cases I preside over? Something to think about.

There is an old adage “justice delayed is justice denied.” Too often courts operate far too slowly despite research that shows the speed to disposition has a major impact on recidivism. But it is not only criminal cases. Can a fifth grade child learn effectively if they do not know which parent they will live with until the 8th grade? Effective case management is driven by judges but there are a myriad of other causes not the least of which is for the justice system to be adequately funded.

Propublica recently published an article on delay in the justice system. It is painful to read. Alaska has for decades had a very effective judiciary. But the story in a sense is not about Alaska. It is about many of our courts.  https://www.propublica.org/article/anchorage-alaska-pretrial-delays-sexual-assault

The Brennan Center asked a group of scholars to pick their most important decision of 2024. Here is a sample:

I confess that I am at many levels uncomfortable with this decision. A federal judge violated judicial ethics rules by publishing an essay in the New York Times criticizing conservative U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito for allowing provocative flags including an upside-down American flag to fly outside his houses, according to an order made public on Tuesday.

Senior U.S. District Judge Michael Ponsor in Springfield, Massachusetts, wrote in his May 24, 2024, essay that any judge with reasonable ethical instincts would have realized that flying a flag then and in that way be “improper” and “dumb.” https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/judges-criticism-us-supreme-courts-alito-over-flags-is-deemed-improper-2024-12-17/

Dissent is valuable. Organizations that stifle dissent rarely are successful. Judges have asked the public to accept that we often order protection for speech that is distasteful. So is this an example of those who live in glass houses should not throw stones? And if the essay in the New York Times was inappropriate what about Justice Alito’s flag flying?

Leave a comment.

The Montana Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a district court ruling in the nation’s first constitutional climate change trial, affirming that the youth plaintiffs have a “fundamental constitutional right to a clean and healthful environment” while revoking two state laws, The Daily Montanan reports.

The 70-page decision, authored by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, comes 16 months after Lewis and Clark District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in the landmark Held v. Montana lawsuit, explicitly stating that the state’s greenhouse gas emissions are “proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana’s environment, and harm and injury to the youth plaintiffs.”

The Ohio Supreme Court ruled this week that the state’s public nuisance law couldn’t be used against pharmacies to punish them for the role they played in the opioid crisis that devastated communities in the Midwest. That theory — that over-prescribed medications are a public nuisance — has received mixed support among federal and state judges. THE WASHINGTON POST 

The Hon. David S. Tatel, served for nearly 30 years on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Judge Tatel’s memoir, Vision: A Memoir of Blindness and Justice (Little, Brown and Company, 2024), tells the story of his more than 50 years of blindness and how he has only recently learned to confront his disability. In the book, he also addresses falling public confidence in the US Supreme Court’s ability to serve as an impartial arbiter of justice. He is a gifted and thoughtful write as is illustrated by his recent commentary in the Washington Post. https://wapo.st/3ZNwzXb

Judge Tatel argues, “Public trust in our judiciary is critical to American democracy. Unlike members of the executive and legislative branches, whom we can vote in or out of office, federal judges serve for life. As a result, their power hinges on the public’s confidence in their decisions. Even the slightest hint of bias or partiality threatens the integrity of the judiciary and the rule of law. It isn’t enough that judges believe they can be impartial, they must also appear to be impartial.”