The Mississippi Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging House Bill 1020, which would establish a new court system with unelected judges in Jackson, Mississippi, and expand the power of the chief justice of the state supreme court to appoint additional judges to the Hinds County Circuit Court. The lawsuit argues that the law’s antidemocratic provisions violate the Mississippi Constitution. The appeal follows the dismissal of the lawsuit by a state judge, who ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the state constitution.

In his opening statement, the appellants’ attorney, Cliff Johnson, emphasized the conflict with the Mississippi Constitution, stating, “The Mississippi Constitution forbids the judicial appointments demanded by H.B. 1020.” He further argued that the state constitution prohibits judicial appointments to the Hinds County Circuit Court as required by the law.

The state’s attorney, Scott Stewart, defended H.B. 1020, asserting that the lower court was “right” to uphold the judicial appointments prescribed by the legislature, claiming they “fall within Legislature’s constitutional purview.” He also highlighted the potential benefits of the law, stating that the appointments would help alleviate the judicial backlog without interfering with the existing elected judges in the Hinds County Circuit Court.

An investigation by the Associated Press has uncovered several instances of public colleges and universities in the United States apparently using visits by Supreme Court justices as opportunities to solicit donations. The records reveal instances where justices were placed in the presence of influential donors, raising concerns about the influence of money on court decisions. This report comes on the heels of a string of recent reports regarding other ethics issues at the Supreme Court, particularly around the relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow.

University of Virginia law professor Amanda Frost explains, “The justices should be aware that people are selling access to them.” According to the AP, the Supreme Court’s narrow definition of fundraising allows justices to participate in these types of events where subsequent solicitation of contributions may occur, a practice prohibited for lower court federal judges. The absence of a comprehensive code of conduct for the Supreme Court raises concerns about accountability.

In response to these and other long-standing concerns about ethics at the Supreme Court, top Senate Democrats, including Sheldon Whitehouse and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, introduced the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act earlier this year. Durbin emphasized the need for higher ethical standards, stating, “Congress has clear authority to oversee the federal judiciary.” The committee will vote on the bill on July 20. However, it remains uncertain if it will receive sufficient support to overcome a filibuster, as GOP senators have dismissed suggestions that Congress should respond to recent ethics issues.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has declined county attorneys’ request to reverse her executive order imposing limitations on their prosecution of abortion cases. Signed on June 22, the order grants exclusive authority to the state Attorney General Kris Mayes for potential county prosecutions under state abortion laws.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell criticized the order as a “substantial overreach” that undermines judicial independence. Twelve out of the state’s fifteen county attorneys argue the order infringes on their duties as elected officials, describing it as an “unnecessary and unjustified impingement.” However, Governor Hobbs maintains that her order is a response to the uncertainty caused by the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade and the existence of conflicting abortion laws in Arizona.

This dispute highlights the wider controversy surrounding abortion in Arizona, marked by ongoing legal battles and debates over restrictions. It brings into question the extent of the attorney general’s authority and the role of elected county attorneys in enforcing abortion laws. The clash between Governor Hobbs and the county attorneys underscores the partisan divide on abortion-related policies and carries implications for reproductive rights within the state.