DOCSLIB.ORG

Dear Judges, Please Find Attached Two Documents Concerning Recent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dear Judges, Please Find Attached Two Documents Concerning Recent Hummer, Marie From: Chief Justice Maureen O'Connor < [email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 4:29 PM To: Hummer, Mark Subject: Recent guidance from U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Attachments: ICE Revised Courthouse Policy Statement January 2018.pdf; Summary ICE Revised Courthouse Policy January 2018.pdf Dear Judges, Please find attached two documents concerning recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE), regarding practices to be followed by ICE agents when effectuating arrests of target individuals inside courthouses. The first document is a summary the Department's policy prepared by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). The second document is the actual directive issued by the Department setting forth its policy regarding civil immigration enforcement actions inside federal, state, and local courthouses. The policy issued by the Department is the result of several months of meetings between ICE representatives and members of the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. The purpose of the Department's directive is to minimize disruptions to state court proceedings, and clarify roles and responsibilities to prevent conflicts between local authorities and ICE agents. Please take time to read the attached documents and familiarize yourself with the Department's policy directive to its agents so that everyone in our court facilities understands the protocols agents have been directed to follow. I ask that should you or court staff encounter ICE practices that are contrary to the Depaiiment's directives that you inform the Supreme Court's Office of the Administrative Director. The Office is here to assist in resolving any problems and interfacing with the Department concerning non-compliant practices. As always, thank you for your commitment and service to the people of Ohio. Sincerely, Maureen O'Connor Chief Justice 1 Background Information Re: January 30, 2018 ICE Policy on Courthouse Arrests • The incidence of enforcement activities in and around state court facilities by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers increased in 2017 following changes in federal immigration policies and procedures. • Court officials in several states raised concerns about the potential impact of these activities and the publicity which surrounded them, suggesting that it would cause some members of the public to avoid appearance at the courthouse. The potential impact extends beyond those who might be targets of immigration enforcement activities and also includes family members and others in the community, where levels of trust and confidence in the judicial system are already low. This failure to appear can impact witnesses to criminal activity, victims of domestic violence and other crimes, and those needing to access services for children and families. • The Conference of Chief Justices created a "Study Group on Improving Relationships Between the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the State Courts", chaired by Chief Justice Mike Heavican (NE). Other members include Chief Justices Scott Bales (AZ), Mark Cady (IA), Janet DiFiore (NY), Nathan Hecht (TX) and Stuart Rabner (NJ). Also serving are former Chief Judge Eric Washington (DC), State Court Administrator Jeff Shorba (MN) and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks (NY). Their charge was to study all of the issues, communicate with and provide recommendations to federal officials, and offer information, guidance and advice to state court leaders. • Meetings between members of the Study Group and representatives of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security took place on three occasions during 2017 and 2018. • One initial inquiry by the Study Group was whether the agencies would consider a revision to ICE Policy 10029.2 by designating court facilities as "sensitive locations" and agreeing to only undertake enforcement activities in and around court facilities in cases of exigent circumstances. This request was denied and communicated in a letter from Acting ICE Director Thomas Holman to NCSC President Mary McQueen in June, 2017. • Further informal communication continued and the Work Group recommended other policy proposals involving limitations on courthouse activities and procedures by immigration officers. • The new policy announced on January 30, 2018 is partly responsive to these suggestions and, while adopting some important limitations on the scope and location of immigration enforcement, also provides clarity and transparency for immigration officers, court officials and members of the public. The full policy is posted here: https://www.ice.gov/sites/ de fa u lt/files/docu ments/Docu ment/2018/ci EnforcementActionsCou r thouses.pdf • The following are provisions of the policy of primary interest to the courts: The response was released as a "Policy Directive", meaning that it is a public document and available to the public. Previous ICE policies on courthouse enforcement activities were not available to the public, causing both confusion and concern about their nature and scope. The scope of individuals who are targets of enforcement activities in court facilities is more limited than in other areas. ICE will only seek individuals in court facilities who 1) have criminal convictions, 2) are gang members, 3) are national security threats, or 4) have already been judicially ordered removed from the US. Only the targeted individuals will be subject to enforcement actions in the court facility. Family members, friends or others who may be with the targeted individual will not be questioned or subject to any enforcement activity. Officers will only engage in enforcement activities in court facilities or areas of court facilities that are dedicated to criminal proceedings and will avoid enforcement activities in non-criminal facilities or areas (such as family court and small claims court). Enforcement activities will take place in non-public areas of the courthouse and will be conducted in collaboration with court security staff. • CCJ will be recommending that state-level meetings occur in each state between state judicial leaders and the designated federal immigration enforcement officials in order to discuss the impact and implementation of the new policy in each state. • It is hoped and anticipated that future communication between the CCJ Study Group and federal officials will continue in order to provide a mechanism for the discussion and consideration of other issues and concerns. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Directive Number 11072.1: Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions Inside Courthouses Issue Date: January 10, 2018 Effective Date: January 10, 2018 Superseded: None Federal Enterprise Architecture Number: 306-l 12-002b 1. Purpose/Background. This Directive sets forth U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) policy regarding civil immigration enforcement actions inside federal, state, and local courthouses. Individuals entering courthouses are typically screened by law enforcement personnel to search for weapons and other contraband. Accordingly, civil immigration enforcement actions taken inside courthouses can reduce safety risks to the public, targeted alien(s), and ICE officers and agents. When practicable, ICE officers and agents will conduct enforcement actions discreetly to minimize their impact on court proceedings. Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials routinely engage in enforcement activity in courthouses throughout the country because many individuals appearing in courthouses for one matter are wanted for unrelated criminal or civil violations. ICE's enforcement activities in these same courthouses are wholly consistent with longstanding law enforcement practices, nationwide. And, courthouse arrests are often necessitated by the unwillingness of jurisdictions to cooperate with ICE in the transfer of custody of aliens from their prisons and jails. 2. Policy. ICE civil immigration enforcement actions inside courthouses include actions against specific, targeted aliens with criminal convictions, gang members, national security or public safety threats, aliens who have been ordered removed from the United States but have failed to depart, and aliens who have re-entered the country illegally after being removed, when ICE officers or agents have information that leads them to believe the targeted aliens are present at that specific location. Aliens encountered during a civil immigration enforcement action inside a courthouse, such as family members or friends accompanying the target alien to court appearances or serving as a witness in a proceeding, will not be subject to civil immigration enforcement action, absent special circumstances, such as where the individual poses a threat to public safety or interferes with ICE's enforcement actions. 1 1 ICE officers and agents will make enforcement determinations on a case-by-case basis in accordance with federal law and consistent with U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. See Memorandum from John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, Enforcement ofthe Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Feb. 20, 2017); Memorandum from John Kelly, Secretary of Homeland Security, Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Feb. 20, 2017). Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions Inside Courthouses FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY ICE officers
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Report
    July 15th Campaign Finance Reports Covering January 1 – June 30, 2021 STATEWIDE OFFICEHOLDERS July 18, 2021 GOVERNOR – Governor Greg Abbott – Texans for Greg Abbott - listed: Contributions: $20,872,440.43 Expenditures: $3,123,072.88 Cash-on-Hand: $55,097,867.45 Debt: $0 LT. GOVERNOR – Texans for Dan Patrick listed: Contributions: $5,025,855.00 Expenditures: $827,206.29 Cash-on-Hand: $23,619,464.15 Debt: $0 ATTORNEY GENERAL – Attorney General Ken Paxton reported: Contributions: $1,819,468.91 Expenditures: $264,065.35 Cash-on-Hand: $6,839,399.65 Debt: $125,000.00 COMPTROLLER – Comptroller Glenn Hegar reported: Contributions: $853,050.00 Expenditures: $163,827.80 Cash-on-Hand: $8,567,261.96 Debt: $0 AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER – Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller listed: Contributions: $71,695.00 Expenditures: $110,228.00 Cash-on-Hand: $107,967.40 The information contained in this publication is the property of Texas Candidates and is considered confidential and may contain proprietary information. It is meant solely for the intended recipient. Access to this published information by anyone else is unauthorized unless Texas Candidates grants permission. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted in reliance on this is prohibited. The views expressed in this publication are, unless otherwise stated, those of the author and not those of Texas Candidates or its management. STATEWIDES Debt: $0 LAND COMMISSIONER – Land Commissioner George P. Bush reported: Contributions: $2,264,137.95
    [Show full text]
  • The Weekly News 10-07-20.Indd
    PRSRT STD US POSTAGE PAID Permit No. 00002 Gainesville, Texas The ECRWSS Weekly News of Cooke County © 2020 The Weekly News of Cooke County Volume 17, Number 19 Cooke County, Texas October 7, 2020 Cooke County’s LARGEST and MOST READ Newspaper! Gainesville Hospital King District Approves Budget Around By Delania Raney ating and capital budget for fi scal and the special called August 17, in February when we got it,” Th e Weekly News year 2020-2021. No one signed 2020 meeting. Th e board also CFO Shelle Diehm said. “Th ey Town up to speak during the hearing approved the July and August fi - said that should be booked as a GAINESVILLE – Gainesville and the board approved the bud- nancial reports. limited pay back to the district Hospital District Board of Direc- get with two negative votes. “If you look at page six on so based on the structure of all by Grice King tors held a hearing Monday, Sep- Th e board approved minutes line one that’s income from op- those agreements we had instead tember 28 on the proposed oper- of the July 27, 2020 meeting erations after we did the audit the district gave to the hospital certain assets receivable, etc. So they’re similar to repaying a loan of $7.5 million and we’ve already paid the second $2.5 million. So in the budget even though it says we’re short that money, that cash is in your bank, and I’ll show you where that is in the cash fl ow.
    [Show full text]
  • NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries for 2020
    NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries 2020 National Center for State Courts NCSC Pandemic Webinar Summaries for 2020 Chron. Webinar Title Date(s) Page in Sequence (Alphabetical) This Document 3rd Access to Justice Considerations for State and April 3rd, pg. 4 Local Courts as They Respond to COVID-19: A 2020 Conversation 17th Addressing Court Workplace Mental Health and June 25th, pg. 5 Well-Being in Tense Times 2020 32nd Administering Criminal Courts During the October pg. 7 Pandemic: Next Steps 29th, 2020 29th Approaches to Managing Juvenile Cases in the October 1st, pg. 8 COVID Era 2020 18th Back to the Future: Video Remote Interpreting June 30th, pg. 10 and Other Language Access Solutions in the 2020 Time of COVID 27th Court Management of Guardianships and September pg. 12 Conservatorships During the Pandemic 23rd, 2020 24th COVID-19 Business Litigation Grab Bag September pg. 14 14th, 2020 20th COVID-19 Commercial Contract Litigation July 20th, pg. 16 2020 10th COVID-19 and Courthouse Planning to Get May 15th, pg. 18 Back to Business Inside the Courthouse 2020 21st COVID-19 Labor and Employment Liability August 3rd, pg. 19 2020 22nd COVID-19 State Insolvency: Receiverships & August 10th, pg. 20 Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors 2020 9th Developing Plans for Expanding In-Person May 1st, pg. 22 Court Operations 2020 19th Essential Steps to Tackle Backlog and Prepare July 19th, pg. 24 for a Surge in New Cases 2020 11th Expanding Court Operations II: Outside the Box May 19th, pg. 26 Strategies 2020 33rd Fair and Efficient Handling of Consumer Debt November pg.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNTYNOCOUNTY OFFICE SOUGHT BALLOT NAME PARTY 154 Madison Chief Justice, Supreme Court Nathan Hecht REP 154 Madison Chief Justi
    COUNTYNOCOUNTY OFFICE_SOUGHT BALLOT_NAME PARTY 154 Madison Chief Justice, Supreme Court Nathan Hecht REP 154 Madison Chief Justice, Supreme Court Robert Talton REP 154 Madison Chief Justice, Supreme Court William Moody DEM 154 Madison County Judge C.E. "Butch" McDaniel REP 154 Madison County Judge Douglas R. Holly REP 154 Madison County Judge Kent Pate REP 154 Madison County Judge Scott Singletary REP 154 Madison County Judge Wilburn Carlton Bullard III REP 154 Madison District Judge, 278th Judicial District Hal R. Ridley REP 154 Madison District Judge, 278th Judicial District Thomas A. Leeper REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 Barbara Walther REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 Bert Richardson REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 John Granberg DEM 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Jani Jo Wood REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Kevin Patrick Yeary REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Richard Dean Davis REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9 David Newell REP 154 Madison Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9 W.C. "Bud" Kirkendall REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 Denise Landry REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 Jim Vance REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 Jon Stevens REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 Don M. Grove REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 Lew V. Plotts Jr. REP 154 Madison Justice of the Peace Precinct 2 Mitchell Dill REP
    [Show full text]
  • COUNTYNOCOUNTY OFFICE SOUGHT BALLOT NAME PARTY 1 Anderson Chief Justice, 12Th Court of Appeals District Jim Worthen REP 1 Anders
    COUNTYNOCOUNTY OFFICE_SOUGHT BALLOT_NAME PARTY 1 Anderson Chief Justice, 12th Court of Appeals District Jim Worthen REP 1 Anderson Chief Justice, Supreme Court Nathan Hecht REP 1 Anderson Chief Justice, Supreme Court Robert Talton REP 1 Anderson Chief Justice, Supreme Court William Moody DEM 1 Anderson County Court At Law Judge Jeff Doran REP 1 Anderson County Judge James W. Westley REP 1 Anderson County Judge Robert D. Johnston REP 1 Anderson District Judge, 369th Judicial District Bascom W. Bentley, III REP 1 Anderson District Judge, 87th Judicial District Deborah Oakes Evans REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 Barbara Walther REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 Bert Richardson REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 3 John Granberg DEM 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Jani Jo Wood REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Kevin Patrick Yeary REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 4 Richard Dean Davis REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9 David Newell REP 1 Anderson Judge, Court of Criminal Appeals Place 9 W.C. "Bud" Kirkendall REP 1 Anderson Justice of the Peace Pct. 2 Carl E. Davis DEM 1 Anderson Justice of the Peace Precinct 1 Gary D. Thomas REP 1 Anderson Justice of the Peace Precinct 3 James E. Todd REP 1 Anderson Justice of the Peace Precinct 4 James Sharp REP 1 Anderson Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6 Jeff Brown REP 1 Anderson Justice, Supreme Court, Place 6 Joe Pool REP 1 Anderson Justice, Supreme Court, Place
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notebook
    THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THE TEXAS COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Judicial Commission on Mental Health May 15, 2018 Meeting Notebook The State Bar of Texas – Texas Law Center 1414 Colorado Street Austin, Texas 78701 Judicial Commission on Mental Health May 15, 2018 Meeting Notebook TABLE OF CONTENTS Agenda ................................................................................................................................1 Commissioner Directory ...................................................................................................2 Planning Committee Report .............................................................................................3 Order Establishing the Judicial Commission on Mental Health/Order Appointing the Judicial Commission on Mental Health .....................................................................4 Financial Report ................................................................................................................5 Texas Judicial Council Report and Presentation ............................................................6 Media ...................................................................................................................................7 INSERT TAB 1 Judicial Commission on Mental Health State Bar of Texas, Texas Law Center Austin, Texas May 15, 2018 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. AGENDA 9:30 Welcome Chief Justice Nathan Hecht Presiding Judge Sharon Keller 9:45 Establishing a Judicial Commission on Mental Health Justice Jeff Brown Judge Barbara Hervey 10:00
    [Show full text]
  • General Election » November 3, 2020
    VOTERS GUIDE GENERAL ELECTION » NOVEMBER 3, 2020 U.S. President » U.S. Senator » Railroad Commissioner » Texas Supreme Court » Texas Court of Criminal Appeals » State Board of Education » Court of Appeals EARLY VOTING: Oct. 13–30, 2020 » ELECTION DAY: Nov. 3, 2020. Polls open 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. » ABOUT THIS VOTERS GUIDE » EMPOWERING VOTERS. is Voters Guide is funded and published by the League of Women e League never supports or opposes political can- DEFENDING DEMOCRACY. didates or political parties. » VOTING IN TEXAS » ONLINE VOTERS GUIDE First General Election without straight-party voting! e Voters Guide is available online at VOTE .org. By entering your address Beginning with the Novemb General Election, voters may no longer check and zip code, you can view races and candidates that appear on your ballot, com- one box to vote for one party’s candidates in every partisan race. Instead, vot- pare candidates’ responses to questions posed by the League, and create a print- ed Libertarian, or “G” for Green. Candidates in many local elections are non partisan and do not represent a party. How do I fi nd my polling place? Go to VOTE .org or your county election website. What is on my ballot? • Find a sample ballot on your county election website! • Compare candidates with the League’s nonpartisan Voters Guide at VOTE .org. • Take your list of candidates to the polls when you go vote! » SIGN UP FOR • You may bring the League’s Voters Guide to the polls. VOTING REMINDERS! • You cannot use your phone in the voting booth.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Business Is Still Dominating State Supreme Courts
    AP PHOTO/ERIC GAY PHOTO/ERIC AP Big Business is Still Dominating State Supreme Courts By Billy Corriher September 2016 WWW.AMERICANPROGRESS.ORG Big Business is Still Dominating State Supreme Courts By Billy Corriher September 2016 Contents 1 Introduction and summary 3 Tilting the law in favor of corporations 15 Conclusion: Reform judicial selection to minimize the influence of money 17 About the author 18 Appendix 35 Endnotes Introduction and summary The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the billionaire Koch brothers, and their big- business allies have engaged in a decades-long effort to elect pro-corporate judges to state courts. In 1971, a corporate lawyer named Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote a secret memo to the chamber arguing that big business was under attack from insti- tutions he perceived as liberal: academics, the media, college students, and politi- cians.1 He also cited the public’s support for legislation to protect consumers and the environment. Powell lamented that “few elements of American society today have as little influence in government as the American businessman, the corpora- tion, or even the millions of corporate stockholders.”2 Powell suggested a solution: The Chamber . should consider assuming a broader and more vigorous role in the political arena. American business and the enterprise system have been affected as much by the courts as by the executive and legislative branches of government. Under our constitutional system, especially with an activist-minded Supreme Court, the judiciary may be the most important instrument for social, economic and political change.3 Later that same year, Powell joined the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas R EVIEW
    TEXAs R EVIEW Of LAW & POLITICS VOL. 20, No. 2 SPRING 2016 PAGES 169-420 SENATOR TOM COTTON'S SPEECH AT THE 2015 FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION Senator Tom Cotton COLOR-BLIND-SPOT: THE INTERSECTION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN LAW SCHOOL ADMISSIONS Robert Steinbuch Kim Love CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM AT THE CROSSROADS John G. Malcolm A TEXTBASED INTERPRETATION OF TITLE VII' S RELIGIOUS-EMPLOYER EXEMPTION Stephanie N. Phillips STALEMATE AT THE SUPREME COURT: REDRICHS V CALIFORNIA UBLIC UNIONS, AND FREE SPEECH DOMAIN AN D THErCVRON'S RULE OFLA Cory R. Liu SUBSCRIBE TO THE TEXAS REVIEW OF LAW & POLITICS The 'Texas Review of Law & Politics is published twice yearly, fall and spring. To subscribe to the Texas Review of Law & Politics, provide the Review with your name, billing and mailing addresses. e-mail: [email protected] online: www.trolp.org or standard mail: Texas Review of Law & Polities University of Texas School of Law 727 East Dean Keeton Street Austin, TX 78705-3299 Annual subscription rate: $30.00 (domestic); $35.00 (international). ISSN #1098-4577. REPRINTS It's not too late to get a copy of one of your favorite past articles. See the complete list of the Review's past articles at www.trolp.org. Reprint orders should be addressed to: William S. Hein & Co., Inc. 2350 North Forest Road Getzville, NY 14068 TEXAS REVIEW of LAW & POLITICS VOL. 20, No. 2 SPRING 2016 PAGES 169-420 ARTICLES SENATOR TOM COTTON'S SPEECH AT THE 2015 FEDERALIST SOCIETY NATIONAL LAWYERS CONVENTION Senator Tom Cotton...................................................................169 COLOR-BLIND-SPOT: THE INTERSECTION OF FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAW AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN LAw SCHOOL ADMISSIONS Robert Steinbuch & Kim Love.....................................................181 CRIMINALJUSTICE REFORM AT THE CROSSROADS John G.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court Update
    SUPREME COURT UPDATE HONORABLE NATHAN L. HECHT, Austin Justice, Supreme Court of Texas State Bar of Texas rd 33 ANNUAL ADVANCED REAL ESTATE LAW July 7-9, 2011 San Antonio CHAPTER 3 ___________________________________________________ SUPREME COURT UPDATE ___________________________________________________ Phil Johnson Justice Supreme Court of Texas Heather Holmes Staff Attorney Robert Brailas Staff Attorney John Beck Law Clerk Sara Berkeley Law Clerk George Padis Intern Georgie Gonzales Executive Assistant Special thanks to all the Staff Attorneys and Law Clerks at the Supreme Court of Texas for their substantial contributions. ___________________________________________________ February 1, 2011 – April 30, 2011 ___________________________________________________ NATHAN L. HECHT Justice Nathan L. Hecht is the Senior Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, having been elected in 1988 and re-elected in 1994, 2000, and 2006. He is the senior Texas appellate judge in active service. Throughout his service on the Court, Justice Hecht has overseen revisions to the rules of administration, practice, and procedure in Texas courts. In 2000, he was appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States to the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules for the Judicial Conference of the United States, on which he served until 2006. Justice Hecht began his judicial service in 1981, when he was appointed to the 95th District Court in Dallas County. He was elected to that bench in 1982 and re-elected in 1984. In 1986 he was elected to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas at Dallas, where he served until he was elected to the Supreme Court. Before taking the bench, Nathan Hecht was a partner in the Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely (now Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell).
    [Show full text]
  • Lexsee in Re Honorable Nathan Hecht, Texas
    Page 1 LEXSEE IN RE HONORABLE NATHAN HECHT, TEXAS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE No. A-2006-1 SPECIAL COURT OF REVIEW APPOINTED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 213 S.W.3d 547; 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 9087 October 20, 2006, Opinion Issued NOTICE: [**1] Publish I. PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the State This case focuses on whether the Texas Code of Commission on Judicial Conduct. CJC Nos. 06-0129-AP Judicial Conduct, the judicial "rules of [**2] the road," & 06-0130-AP. so to speak, prohibit a Texas state judge from speaking out favorably in behalf of a close friend nominated to the United States Supreme Court. This case hinges on the JUDGES: Before Justices FitzGerald, n1 McClure, n2 meaning of words in this Code and what words were and Mazzant. n3 Opinion By Justices FitzGerald and spoken by the judge. This case involves a composite of Mazzant. McClure, J., concurring. two different political systems for the selection of judges. In Texas, we have an elective process, whereas in the n1 The Honorable Kerry FitzGerald, Justice, federal system, we have a nomination-confirmation Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at process. Dallas: Presiding Justice of the Special Court of Review, appointed by Chief Justice Wallace B. We recognize at the outset a considerable hurdle Jefferson, Texas Supreme Court, by a process of must be overcome: the Texas Code is decidedly deficient random selection. in a pivotal area important in this case, that is, providing n2 The Honorable Ann McClure, Justice, Court of definitive meanings to words in the political arena, words Appeals, Eighth District of Texas at El Paso: such as "authorized," "endorsing," and "private interests." Justice of the Special Court of Review, appointed We are all familiar with certain axioms in particular by Chief Justice Wallace B.
    [Show full text]
  • Accessing Justice, Rationing Law
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eflections, Old St. Louis County Courthouse. Photographer: William Clift © Image reproduced courtesy of the photographer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
    [Show full text]