Primary Sponsor: Tort Trial and Insurance Practice
Section
With the current political climate, the right to free
speech for judges and judicial candidates and the
crafting of judicial ethics codes has become a
critical topic of concern. The U.S. Supreme Court’s
recent denial of certiorari in Dimick v. Republican
Party of Minnesota leaves the constitutionality of
judicial ethics laws limiting the speech and
association rights of judges and judicial candidates
uncertain.
In Dimick, the Supreme Court declined to review
the Eighth Circuit en banc decision that struck
down two provisions of the Minnesota Supreme
Court’s Canons of Judicial Conduct as
unconstitutional. The decision invalidated
restrictions on judicial campaigns that have been
adopted by approximately 30 states and that
remain part of the ABA Model Code. As a result,
judicial candidates are left in a state of uncertainty
with regard to permissible campaign behavior, and
attorneys charged with crafting ethics codes are left
with conflicting guidance. The mock Supreme
Court argument will focus on this conflict between
the need for judicial ethics codes that protect public
confidence in the impartiality of the courts and the
rights of judicial candidates to free speech and
association.
More than just an oral argument, advocates
representing both the plaintiff and the defense will
share their goals and tactics with the audience and
the selected judges will explain what was effective
and what was not. The mock conference of judges
will give you an inside look at their decision-making
process and explain how they will vote and their
feelings on what the opinion should express. A
panel of psychologists and communication
specialists will then analyze the behavior and
comments of the participants and note how the
demeanor and comments of the judges and
advocates affected the case, particularly in light of
the direct interest that those judging and arguing
potentially have in the outcome of the case. The
argument will be followed by a question and answer
session.
Moderator: Dan Polsenberg, Las Vegas, Nevada
Panelists
The Advocates: For the plaintiff:
Alan B. Morrison, Stanford, CA
Charles G. Cole, Washington, DC
For the government:
David Axelrad, Encino, CA
Hon. Danny J. Boggs, Louisville, KY
Hon. Harris L. Hartz, , Albuquerque, NM
Hon. Ronald T.Y. Moon, Honolulu, HI
Hon. Steven Levinson, Honolulu, HI
Hon. John Irwin, Omaha, NE
Hon. Rosemary Sackett, Okoboji, IA
Prof. Steven C. Combs, Honolulu, HI
Prof. John Hart, Honolulu, HI
Richard P. Hogan, Jr., Houston, TX
Jennifer Bruch Hogan, Houston, TX
Julianna McCabe, Miami, FL
Deep link provided by Citebite