Carney v. Adams, No. 19-309 (S. Ct.) Oral argument set for Monday, October 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.
The Supreme Court’s new term opens tomorrow, October 5, with oral argument concerning a Delaware attorney’s challenge to state constitutional requirements that judicial appointments for several courts be made with party affiliations in mind, such that courts are balanced, or if not balanced, such that only a ‘bare majority’ of one party holds power.
James Adams wishes to become a judge in Delaware but as an independent is frozen out because of the state’s two-party balancing requirements.
The state asserts that as sovereign its constitution may provide for equitable apportionment among parties in judicial appointments without being overridden by the federal government. The state also asserts that the Supreme Court’s decisions in anti-patronage disputes permit the course adopted by Delaware for judges are policy makers whose work necessitates party loyalty, unlike employees who do not make policy and who ought not fear termination because of any political party affiliation.
The state argues that as a preliminary matter Adams cannot sue because he has not been injured by the Constitutional provisions. He has not actively sought appointment and he cannot inflict injury upon himself in order to create an interest in challenging the judicial appointment provisions.
Adams believes that he need not seek appointment with full knowledge that he would be rejected so that he can challenge Delaware’s constitution. Delaware’s position that sovereignty precludes a challenge to its constitution must fail, Adams argues, because the constitution is depriving him of associational rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Moreover, there is little merit to the ‘policy maker’ argument, as the very thing that the anti-patronage cases rejected — loss of employment because of party affiliation — does not depend on whether an employee is high level or low level, but on whether party affiliation caused the harm in issue, his failure to be able to become a judge because he is not a partisan.
Delaware takes pride in having enshrined partisan balancing in its constitution. Preeminent in the law of corporations, Delaware is invested in establishing and maintaining fairness in judicial appointments so that the credibility and reliability of its judiciary will be perceived to be sound. Delaware argues that the state constitution serves this end and must be permitted to remain as it is.
Adams insists that the preclusion from a coveted appointment is hardly the “light burden” on free speech that the state contends that it is, but rather creates an unconstitutional categorical exclusion of independent or third party judicial candidates..
Note regarding oral argument.. As restrictions related to the COVID-19 virus remain in effect, and as the Supreme Court remains closed, argument will be conducted telephonically. Although modified to address public health concerns, guarantees of access to the courts have not been abandoned. Oral arguments will be available by livestream audio through C-Span: https://www.c-span.org/video/?469266-1/carney-v-adams-oral-argument