News & Updates

Judge Neil Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this week underscored the difference between elected officials and judges. He repeatedly declined to answer questions about his personal views, declined to express his opinion of various precedents, and repeatedly swore to uphold the law, irrespective of the parties before him.

As reported by the Washington Post, the President is not the only one who has taken on the courts recently: it is also happening in state legislatures around the country. This comes as no surprise to state court watchers; in fact, legislation targeting state courts for unpopular decisions is now commonplace. (Our March 2016, January 2015, and February 2014 blog posts chronicle these efforts.)

New Mexico Supreme Court Chief Justice Charles Daniels had grim news for state legislators at his annual State of the Judiciary speech last month: the state’s judicial system may no longer be able to provide New Mexicans with adequate access to their Constitutional rights due to a crippling financial crisis.

IAALS Executive Director Rebecca Love Korulis wrote in this week's Denver Post, “But in the legal system as in football, the judges on the bench and the referees on the field are charged with enforcing the rules – sometimes in close calls. While we may not like a ruling, we respect and accept the authority of those entrusted with making it.”

Robust evaluation of judges has a dual purpose. It educates judges on their strengths and weaknesses on the bench and equips them to make necessary improvements. It also empowers voters, legislators, and governors with meaningful information they can use when deciding whether to retain or reappoint judges. Across the country, people are struggling with how to gauge whether a judge is doing a good job.

Based on its decade of work in the field of judicial performance evaluation (JPE), IAALS was invited to contribute a chapter on this topic to the recently published 8th edition of the American Bar Association’s The Improvement of the Administration of Justice.

At a point when public mistrust of the government seems to be at an all-time high, a recent survey conducted by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) shows that public opinion of at least one branch of government is trending in the right…

On November 3-4, 2016, IAALS convened a blue ribbon group of judges, scholars, and attorneys from across the country to discuss best practices for procedural rules for judicial recusal. The group discussed the need for procedures that are fair to both judges and litigants, that provide transparency without sacrificing efficiency, and that uphold the public’s confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the judiciary.

Here's an overview of 2016 election outcomes that impacted state courts and judges. Ballot Measures Georgia voters approved Amendment 3, which abolishes the Judicial Qualifications Commission (the disciplinary entity for the state’s judges) and…

Since Colorado is IAALS’ home base, we are thrilled to join in the celebration of the state’s 50th anniversary of the adoption of merit selection for judges. Colorado was at the forefront of a national merit selection movement that took place in the mid- and late-twentieth century.

Implicit bias can obstruct the goal of fair, trusted, and accountable courts, and many groups have recognized how such unconscious perceptions can affect litigants, judges, and other aspects of the legal system. Recently, the American Bar Association (ABA) House of Delegates took action by adopting Resolution 116, which amended the ABA Principles for Juries and Jury Trials.

With our publication Judges Aren’t Sexy: Engaging and Educating Voters in a Crowded World, we offered a range of practical recommendations—including communications strategies and assets for social media and a messaging platform—for communicating with judicial voters. A handful of states have put our recommendations into practice for this election cycle.

On September 17, 1787, the Framers signed the United States Constitution. The day is observed by some lawyer and judge groups but, unfortunately, largely goes unnoticed by the rest of the population. Our Constitution is masterful, and deserves to be celebrated by all of us.

The United States Constitution will be 229 years old on September 17. The Constitution was the document that charted the course for our country, mirrored in significant part in state constitutions that followed. In one respect, the Constitution is like the rebar embedded in the concrete that supports our houses, buildings, skyscrapers, and bridges. It is unseen, but critical to the strength of the structure. So, too, our Constitution is fused into the heartbeat of our economy, our democracy, and our court system. Without it, we could not do business, pass laws, create rules of interaction with one another, or transfer power peacefully.

A couple of years ago at Aspen, Margaret Marshall, who retired as Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in 2010, issued a chilling warning about how nations lose the rule of law. Marshall, who spent her early years in apartheid South Africa, said that when the rule of law goes, it does so “astonishingly quickly. The current election cycle brings to mind Marshall’s admonition, and in particular, the allegation that the “game is rigged”  leads again to considering the kind of corruption that campaign donations foster: The Citizens United Problem. The case has become a dog whistle on both sides. Progressive surrogates suggest that if only the case could be reversed, the flow of donations from corporations to political campaigns would cease, and with it corruption of the process. On the other side, conservatives caution that to cease the flow of funds would eviscerate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. And guess what, both sides use the parade of horribles to—you got it—raise money.

On June 15, 2015, members of the American Bar Association joined with their British counterparts on a water meadow on the banks of the Thames at Runnymede, county of Surrey, England, directly under the flight path of Heathrow Airport. This event culminated the celebration of the anniversary of perhaps the seminal document on the rule of law: Magna Carta. I had the privilege of not only attending the 800th Anniversary of the sealing of Magna Carta, but also of chairing the ABA’s London Programs leading up to the actual anniversary. After two years of planning, the celebration exceeded all expectations, with the Her Majesty the Queen, the Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal, other members of the royal family, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the U.S. Attorney General in attendance.

The Framers of the Constitution knew a few important things about people in general. People want power. They seek to impose their will on others. They make mistakes. And they think they know more than they actually know. The Framers were introspective enough to see that these pervasive human shortcomings would be found in the public officials about to run our new government. The Framers, therefore, took systematic action to alleviate the impact of power-seeking, mistake-making, all-knowing officials who would fill the three branches.

More than two hundred years ago, our Founders created and signed the Constitution of the United States. This codified, written constitution established that ours would be a nation governed by the rule of law. The concepts embodied in the phrase “rule of law” are both simple and complex. Its simplicity derives from the fact that the underlying notion is clear: all persons, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, economic or social status, or other group or individual characteristic, are equal in the eyes of the law. The concept, however, also requires that a complex web of laws and governmental actions come together to assure the protection of the rule of law for all.

"Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities, because, as has been said, 'it is the quality which guarantees all others.'" —Winston Churchill. I agree with Churchill—who knew a thing or two about courage—that it is the quality that permits us to exercise whatever other virtues we possess. This is true for everyone, but especially for judges. No one can be a great judge, or even a good one, without the courage to do what what the law demands, even in the face of tremendous pressure to do otherwise.

We live in a time of cynicism and dissatisfaction with government—a dissatisfaction that includes the judicial branch. Gallup surveys of satisfaction with the way the nation is being governed have been stuck for the past few years at levels not seen since the days of President Richard Nixon and Watergate. Approval of the United States Supreme Court, which historically stayed safely in positive territory, has been close to 50-50 in recent years—and was negative (50% disapproving, 45% approving) at the start of the Court’s term last October.