This E-Lert highlight’s Democrats’ inclusion of court reforms in their 2020 party platform, the federal judiciary’s decision to table a proposed ban on judicial membership with the ACS and the Federalist Society, and more.
Donate
[link removed]
([link removed])
[FAIR COURTS]
Federal Judiciary
Democrats Include Court Reforms in Party Platform
On Tuesday, the Democratic Party approved its 2020 party platform, which includes a call for unspecified “structural court reforms” and the appointment of federal judges with diverse backgrounds and experiences.
In their platform
([link removed])
, Democrats said structural court reforms were needed to respond to the Republicans’ efforts to pack the federal courts with “unqualified, partisan judges” and their obstruction of President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016, along with “dozens of diverse lower-court nominees.” The Democrats also pledged to “appoint U.S. Supreme Court justices and federal judges who look like America,” including former public defenders, legal aid attorneys, and civil rights lawyers.
The language calling for court reform was introduced after 22 progressive groups sent a letter to the party’s platform committee, saying
([link removed])
the party’s failure to include court reforms would “send Republicans the message that they can continue to break the rules to hijack our courts[.]” While the platform did not call for specific reforms, a number of groups, such as the Center for American Progress
([link removed])
and Fix the Court
([link removed])
, have endorsed term limits for Supreme Court justices, while others, such as Take Back The Court and 8 other groups
([link removed])
, have called for expanding the Supreme Court by at least two seats.
Federal Judiciary Tables Proposed Ban on Judicial Membership with ACS and the Federalist Society
The Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct of the U.S. Judicial Conference announced its decision
([link removed])
to shelve a draft advisory opinion that would have banned federal judges from holding leadership or membership roles with the American Constitution Society (ACS) or the Federalist Society.
The draft opinion said membership in ACS or the Federalist Society was inconsistent with judicial ethics rules because a judge’s official affiliation with either group could “call into question the affiliated judge’s impartiality” and “generally frustrate the public’s trust in the integrity of the judiciary.” The opinion would not have prevented judges from attending events hosted by either group.
Circulated for comment back in January, the draft opinion prompted criticism from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas
([link removed])
, and at least one editorial
([link removed])
and one op-ed
([link removed])
in the Wall Street Journal. It was also admonished by over 200 federal judges (most of whom are Trump appointees), as well as 29 Republican senators, according to the New York Times.
([link removed])
In a memorandum
([link removed])
announcing its decision to table the ban, the director of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts said the Committee would instead “rely on the advice it has previously provided concerning membership in law-related organizations,” leaving membership decisions to the judgment of individual judges.
States Turn to Virtual Eviction and Foreclosure Proceedings After Courts Lift Eviction Moratoriums
Over half
([link removed])
of all states have allowed judges to resume
([link removed])
eviction and foreclosure hearings as moratoriums due to the Covid-19 pandemic begin to expire. In addition, the provision in the CARES Act meant to protect renters expired at the end of July, leaving as many as 30-40 million
([link removed])
Americans housing insecure.
Following an order
([link removed])
by the state’s supreme court authorizing remote proceedings, Florida is set to resume eviction and foreclosure hearings remotely, with approximately 51% of renters
([link removed])
in the state unable to pay rent due to the economic downturn. Florida has had one of the highest amounts of Covid-19 cases across the country, with nearly 600,000 cases
([link removed])
as of August 18.
According to the Orlando Sentinel
([link removed])
, local court officials “are confident hearings will run smoothly.” However, legal advocates in the state, such as Eric Dunn, the director of litigation for the National Housing Law Project, have expressed concerns that video proceedings may put residents at greater risk of being improperly evicted.
Other states holding virtual eviction and foreclosure hearings are Georgia
([link removed])
, Kansas
([link removed])
, and Texas
([link removed])
([link removed])
The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that works to reform, revitalize – and when necessary defend – our country’s systems of democracy and justice.
Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law
120 Broadway, Suite 1750
New York, NY 10271
T 646 292 8310
F 212 463 7308
[email protected]
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences
[link removed]
Want to stop receiving these emails?
Click here to unsubscribe
[link removed]
([link removed])
([link removed])
([link removed])
([link removed])
