Carney May Still Consider Party in Judicial Nominations, Lawyers Argue
Lawyers for the Carney administration are arguing in federal court that Gov. John Carney has the discretion to consider party affiliation in judicial nominations, despite a federal court ruling that struck down a provision of the Delaware Constitution that requires strict political balance among the state's judges.
March 08, 2018 at 06:18 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Delaware Law Weekly
John C. Carney Jr., D-Delaware. Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Lawyers for the Carney administration are arguing in federal court that Gov. John Carney has the discretion to consider party affiliation in judicial nominations, despite a federal court ruling that struck down a provision of the Delaware Constitution that requires strict political balance among the state's judges.
Attorneys for the governor responded on Wednesday to a motion from a local attorney asking a judge to hold Carney in contempt for ignoring a Dec. 6, 2017, ruling from U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge of the District of Delaware, which found the 120-year-old requirement violated the First Amendment by restricting government employment based on party affiliation.
David C. McBride, an attorney for Carney, said in a court filing that nothing in Thynge's memorandum opinion addressed other provisions preventing one political party from being represented by more than a “bare majority” of the judges on Delaware's courts. And he argued that Carney could still weigh a candidate's party association on a discretionary basis.
Carney has asked Thynge for clarification on both aspects of the ruling.
“The court has not entered an order specifically directing defendant to do or refrain from doing anything, as required for a contempt finding,” said McBride, a partner with Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor. “Given the absence of such an order, plaintiff's motion presents no legal basis for a contempt finding, and it should be denied.”
A spokesman for the governor did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.
James R. Adams, a registered independent who successfully challenged the party-balance mandate last year, argued that a Feb. 19 posting for a Superior Court judgeship in Sussex County violated Thynge's ruling by indicating the governor's “preference” to nominate a Democrat to fill the vacancy.
“By announcing at the outset that he was going to select a candidate of a particular political party, Gov. Carney conceded that political affiliation was and is a substantial factor in his appointment decisions,” Adams' attorney, David L. Finger, wrote in a Feb. 21 filing.
Finger, of Finger & Slanina, said that Carney lacked the discretion to even consider party affiliation, which, he said, Carney had made a “controlling” factor in the nominating process.
“Either you can do it or you can't do it,” Finger said. When asked if Thynge's ruling was clear on that point, he responded: “Yes.”
Carney's attorneys have appealed the December ruling, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stayed the case, pending a resolution to Carney's motion for reconsideration.
In Wednesday's filing, McBride said Carney would oppose any injunction once the reconsideration motion is decided, and he would ask Thynge to stay the case while it is on appeal, McBride said.
Carney's attorneys cited a “pressing need” to fill state court vacancies, including at least four this year. The governor, they said, has acted in good faith to meet his obligations under state and federal constitutional laws in trying to fill recent judicial openings.
“Absent a stay of the court's ruling, the impact of any judicial appointments filled by the governor prior to the resolution of this appeal will be felt by the public, and could disrupt the bipartisan nature of the Delaware judiciary, for years to come,” McBride wrote.
The case is captioned Adams v. Carney.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSoft-Spoken But No-Nonsense: Retired Del. Supreme Court Justice Vaughn Dead at 75
3 minute readThe Del. Supreme Court Could Make the Next Big Move in Anticompetitive Agreements. Here's How.
4 minute readSkadden Partners: String of Securities Wins Highlights Cross-Border Practice
3 minute readCorporate Bankruptcies Slow Down in Q3 as Weil, Davis Polk and Sidley Earn Major Retentions
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250