West Virginia Supreme Court Chief Justice Can't Be Impeached, Panel Rules
Acting Chief Justice James A. Matish and two other acting justices ruled that the Senate overstepped its authority when it moved to impeach Chief Justice Margaret Workman, who was accused of causing senior judges to be overpaid.
October 15, 2018 at 03:59 PM
4 minute read
A majority of a substitute panel of the West Virginia Supreme Court, assembled to review allegations of improper spending on the part of its justices, has ruled that Chief Justice Margaret Workman cannot be impeached by state lawmakers.
Acting Chief Justice James A. Matish, a Circuit Court judge from Harrison County, and two other acting justices, Rudolph Murenksky II of McDowell County and Ronald Wilson of Brooke County, ruled on Oct. 11 that the Senate overstepped its authority when it moved to impeach Workman, who was accused of causing senior judges to be overpaid.
Acting justices Louis Bloom of Kanawha County and Jake Reger of Lewis County concurred in part and dissented in part.
“Our forefathers in establishing this Country, as well as the leaders who established the framework for our State, had the forethought to put a procedure in place to address issues that could arise in the future; in the ensuing years that system has served us well,” Matish said.
“What our forefathers did not envision is the fact that subsequent leaders would not have the ability or willingness to read, understand, or to follow those guidelines,” Matish added. “The problem we have today is that people do not bother to read the rules, or if they read them, they decide the rules do not apply to them.”
Matish said the Legislature did not follow the proper procedure outlined in the state constitution when it moved to impeach Workman and the other sitting members of the Supreme Court.
Workman's lead attorney, Marc Williams of Nelson Mullins in Huntington, said, “We're obviously gratified that the court gave serious consideration to the constitutional issues we raised.”
The lead attorney for Senate President Mitch Carmichael, J. Mark Adkins of Bowles Rice in Charleston, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Nelson Mullins issued a statement, saying Workman “faced a trial where she stood to lose her position, her pension and her reputation.” The decision, the statement added, will “provide a powerful buttress against partisan abuse of impeachment powers by the legislative branch for years to come.”
According to an article published on Oct. 11 by WVNews.com, a Senate representative announced that the Senate would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In August, the state's lawmakers voted to impeach all four of the sitting justices, training the largest number of impeachment articles on former Chief Justice Allen Loughry II, who was suspended in connection with a 23-count federal indictment amid accusations of wasteful spending on office renovations and other alleged crimes.
Typically the court has five justices, but one seat became vacant in July when former Justice Menis Ketchum announced his retirement. Following the vote, Justice Robin Jean Davis announced her retirement.
The Legislature adopted eight articles of impeachment, mostly targeting Loughry, while three other justices, including Workman, were also targeted.
The lawmakers impeached Loughry individually for “unnecessary and lavish spending” while putting more than $363,000 toward renovating his office, an amount that included a nearly $32,000 sofa and the price of installing a custom medallion in the floor.
Workman, who took over as chief justice after Loughry's suspension, allegedly authorized overly generous salaries to judges in the state court system who had taken senior status.
The impeachment of the final justice, Elizabeth “Beth” Walker, came when the West Virginia delegates approved an article that targeted all four justices for abusing their authority by failing to control expenses, and falling short in their oversight of policies related to working lunches and the personal use of state computers and vehicles.
The impeachment proceeded largely along party lines, with most Republican favoring impeachment. Some Democratic lawmakers did, however, also vote in favor of impeachment.
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 AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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