Professional Documents
Culture Documents
sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
_________________________
1160002
_________________________
v.
PER CURIAM.1
1
Section 157(b), Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.), provides
that "[a] judge aggrieved by a decision of the Court of the
Judiciary may appeal to the Supreme Court." Following the
filing of the notice of appeal in this case on October 3,
2016, the members of the Alabama Supreme Court acknowledged
that Canon 3 of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics required
their recusal from consideration of this appeal. In an order
dated October 24, 2016, the Court, pursuant to 149 and
161(h), Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.), and Ala. Code 1975,
12-2-14, authorized "the Acting Chief Justice to participate
with the Governor in causing the names of 50 judges to be
drawn at random from a pool of all retired appellate justices
and judges, retired circuit court judges, and retired district
court judges, who are members of the Alabama State Bar,
capable of service, and residents of the State of Alabama."
1
1160002
Facts and Procedural History
2
Chief Justice Moore was elected Chief Justice in November
2012 and assumed office in January 2013, for a six-year term
that expires in January 2019.
3
1160002
Constitution and the will of the people overwhelmingly
that "I stand with you to stop judicial tyranny and any
3
The Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court is also
the administrative head of the Alabama Administrative Office
of Courts. Ala. Const. 1901, 149 (Off. Recomp.).
4
1160002
On February 8, 2015, Chief Justice Moore issued an
provided:
5
1160002
v. Cornerstone, 57 So. 3d 704, 733 (Ala. 2010))."
not appear in the vote line of this opinion, nor did he author
the vote line of the order. On March 12, 2015, the Court
6
1160002
Chief Justice Moores name did not appear in the vote line of
that order.
a plaintiff class as
7
1160002
order, Judge Granade stayed her injunction until such time as
in API.
8
1160002
in effect and binding on all Alabama probate judges. Strawser,
injunction, stating:
Murdock, Greg Shaw, James Allen Main, Alisa Kelli Wise, and
4
The copy of the memorandum included in the record on
appeal is partially redacted.
9
1160002
Moore stated: "I believe it is time for us to make a decision
5
The copy of the memorandum included in the record on
appeal is partially redacted.
6
A printed copy of the article was attached to the
memorandum.
10
1160002
to the continuing delay of this Court in addressing an issue
the probate judges of this State who have asked for our
11
1160002
the probate judges to Judge Granade's May 21, 2015, order or
explaining why his recusal from the matter was not necessary.
12
1160002
"Canon 2. A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the
Appearance of Impropriety in All His Activities
"...."
___________________
"....
Chief Justice Moore with a copy of the complaint the same day
13
1160002
it was filed. As of the filing of the complaint, Chief
Scope of Review
14
1160002
constitutionally created court with limited
jurisdiction. Ala. Const. 1901, Amend. No. 581,
6.18 [now 157, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp.)]
(proclaimed ratified June 19, 1996). It can decide
only cases involving charges brought against judges
by the Judicial Inquiry Commission. 6.18(a) [now
157(a)]. 'A judge aggrieved by a decision of the
Court of the Judiciary may appeal to the Supreme
Court [of Alabama]. The Supreme Court shall review
the record of the proceedings on the law and the
facts.' 6.18(b) [now 157(b)]."
Standard of Review
15
1160002
judgment, unless such findings would be clearly
erroneous and against the great weight and
preponderance of the evidence.' 759 So. 2d at 555
(quoting Powers v. Judicial Inquiry Comm'n, 434 So.
2d 745, 749 (Ala. 1983)). Further, in reviewing an
appeal from a judgment of the Court of the Judiciary
finding the judge guilty of the charges against him
or her, the Supreme Court 'must consider the
evidence ... in the light most favorable to the
Judicial Inquiry Commission, the prevailing party.'
Boggan, 759 So. 2d at 555.
Issues on Appeal
I.
16
1160002
administrative head of the Alabama judicial system. Section
January 6 order.
17
1160002
motivation constituted a violation of a Canon, but the Court
their jurisdiction.
II.
18
1160002
Inquiry Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing
as charged.
Count I
19
1160002
administration of justice that brings the
judicial office into disrepute, Canon 2B;
and/or
by the text of the order itself. He argues that the order was
law for the probate judges and that he "did not direct the
20
1160002
holdings ...). Moreover, the failure to mention the
Strawser injunction did not prevent the January 6,
2016, order - with its clear statement that probate
judges could not issue samesex marriage licenses -
from being in direct conflict with Strawser ....
"....
21
1160002
federal courts had issued injunctions before
Obergefell was decided -- and each of those
injunctions was consistent with what Obergefell
later held. Thus, the question was whether
Obergefell had rendered moot the need for the lower
federal courts to continue to exercise jurisdiction
to enforce the injunctions they had already entered
before Obergefell was decided. In each case, as the
JIC explains, 'it appears the courts remained
unconvinced that the states would actually abide by
Obergefell's mandate. To say that these cases
somehow indicate that Obergefell does not impact
Alabama law has no basis.' At best, as the JIC
asserts, the 'selective inclusion' and 'selective
omission' of authority was 'one-sided'; at worst, it
was 'fully misleading' and was a 'thinly-veiled
order directing probate judges to defy federal law.'
Indeed, as we have already noted, Chief Justice
Moore's own attorney in this proceeding interpreted
the January 6, 2016, order as a call for open
defiance of federal court decisions and issued a
press release to that effect on the date the order
was released.
22
1160002
Strawser. Accordingly, we conclude that the
omission from the January 6, 2016, order of any
mention of the federal injunction in Strawser was
intentional. Further, this intentional omission was
a failure to follow clear law and a failure to
uphold the integrity and independence of the
judiciary.
23
1160002
cases. The early developments in those cases inspired Chief
that Chief Justice Moore was aware that Judge Granade had
7
The probate judges filing on July 7, 2015, was in
opposition to a motion to make Judge Granades injunction a
permanent injunction. Their argument was that because the
issue was settled, there was no longer a need for a permanent
injunction.
24
1160002
conflict with API I, a conflict he felt compelled to address.
25
1160002
July 7, 2015, filing in Strawser that they were no longer
26
1160002
federal-court injunction in violation of the Alabama Canons of
I.
Count II
Count II charged:
27
1160002
"h. Failed to perform the duties of his office
impartially, Canon 3."
order or precedent."
which found:
28
1160002
Justice Moore's public writings leading up to his issuance of
to Count II.
Count III
29
1160002
"d. Failed to respect and comply with the law,
Canon 2A;
Alabama Supreme Court and that his use of the phrase "[u]ntil
30
1160002
Obergefell had no effect on API I. He did indeed address the
decided that issue. The fact that his decision was limited
Count IV
Count IV charged:
31
1160002
"d. Failed to respect and comply with the law,
Canon 2A;
We disagree.
32
1160002
analysis and argument is disingenuous. Chief Justice Moore
knew the Alabama Supreme Court had asked for briefing on the
Count V
Count V charged:
33
1160002
January 6, 2016, Chief Justice Roy S. Moore
interfered with legal process and remedies in the
United States District Court and/or the Alabama
Supreme Court available through those courts to
address the status of any proceeding to which
Alabama's probate judges were parties. In so doing,
Chief Justice Moore, separately and severally,
violated the following Alabama Canons of Judicial
Ethics:
34
1160002
Court was for the full Court to determine" and "said nothing
because that issue was not before this Court." (Chief Justice
order, the probate judges had already agreed and accepted that
and directing the same probate judges who were bound by the
35
1160002
processes in the United States District Court and the Eleventh
Count VI
Count VI charged:
36
1160002
"b. Failed to observe high standards of conduct so
that the integrity and independence of the
judiciary may be preserved, Canon 1;
37
1160002
argues only that the Judicial Inquiry Commission failed to
38
1160002
We now turn to Chief Justice Moore's argument that the
Commission.
(Emphasis added.)
39
1160002
found:
8
The Court of the Judiciary states the investigatory
hearing before the Judicial Inquiry Commission took place on
April 17, 2016, but the record reflects that hearing took
place on April 7, 2016.
40
1160002
to the Chief Justice that the issue was not a serious one."
41
1160002
of the filing of the complaint. The fact that the Judicial
prejudice.
526 P.2d 268, 273, 116 Cal. Rptr. 260, 265 (1974) ("[N]otice
42
1160002
process. ... Hence, relief from the deleterious effect, if
442. Chief Justice Moore does not allege that the failure to
43
1160002
Justice Moore did provide rebuttal evidence during the April
44
1160002
reveals that significant portions of his
January 6th Order are actually just copied
and pasted verbatim into his subsequent -
and substantive - legal opinion in API II.
"'....
"'....
45
1160002
review of [the January 6, 2016,] order, nor
have I made any public statement on the
effect of Obergefell on this Courts
opinion and order of March 3, 2015.'
46
1160002
Dothan Pers. Bd., 831 So. 2d 1, 5 (Ala. 2002), quoting in turn
API II.
47
1160002
By participating in API II, Chief Justice Moore failed to
III.
9
At trial, Chief Justice Moore objected to the
admissibility of evidence involving his removal from office in
2003, but on appeal he challenges only the manner in which the
evidence was considered.
48
1160002
for the limited purposes for which they were offered by the
Rule 404, Ala. R. Evid., Chief Justice Moore contends that the
(Emphasis added.)
10
The Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure and the Alabama
Rules of Evidence govern proceedings in the Court of the
Judiciary. See Rule 10, Rules of Procedure for the Alabama
Court of the Judiciary.
49
1160002
the Court of the Judiciary's opinion demonstrates that court's
50
1160002
sanction to be imposed.
sanction.
update."
51
1160002
from a previous opinion of that court to demonstrate that
11
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) .
52
1160002
page discussion as to whether the January 6, 2016,
knowledge.12
12
The Judicial Inquiry Commission uses the term "notice."
We note that the list of permissible purposes under Rule
404(b) is not an exhaustive list and that, in this context of
this case, notice and knowledge are synonymous .
53
1160002
trait of character or that in issuing the January 6, 2016,
IV.
argues that this issue was not preserved for appeal because
Chief Justice Moore failed to brief the issue before the Court
of the Judiciary.
(Ala. 2016).
54
1160002
Chief Justice Moore raised this issue, with
footnote that this issue was rendered moot when the temporary
Elections in Palm Beach Cty., Fla., 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th
aspect of mootness.
55
1160002
retained his salary, his retirement benefits, and all other
public importance.
56
1160002
'exception is construed narrowly ... and a clear
showing of each criterion is required to bring a
case within its terms.'"
57
1160002
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 126, 110 S. Ct.
975, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100 (1990). In Zinermon, the
Supreme Court noted that '[p]rocedural due process
rules are meant to protect persons not from the
deprivation, but from the mistaken or unjustified
deprivation of life, liberty, or property.' 494 U.S.
at 125-26, 110 S. Ct. 975, 108 L. Ed. 2d 100
(quoting Carey v. Piphus, 435 U.S. 247, 259, 98 S.
Ct. 1042, 55 L. Ed.2d 252 (1978))."
2000).
58
1160002
essentially, a determination of whether there are
reasonable grounds to believe that the charges
against the employee are true and support the
proposed action.' Id. at 545-46, 105 S. Ct. 1487.
The Supreme Court also noted that under state law
the terminated government employee was later
entitled to a full and adequate administrative
posttermination hearing and judicial review. Id. at
545, 105 S. Ct. 1487. Therefore, the Supreme Court
concluded that under federal procedural-due-process
law all that is required in a pretermination hearing
is 'oral or written notice of the charges against
[the employee], an explanation of the employer's
evidence, and an opportunity [for the employee] to
present his side of the story.' Id. at 546, 105 S.
Ct. 1487. The Supreme Court then stated that '[t]o
require more than this prior to termination would
intrude to an unwarranted extent on the government's
interest in quickly removing an unsatisfactory
employee.'Id."
59
1160002
complaint is dismissed or formal charges are filed with the
That complaint must state "in plain and concise language the
disciplinary hearing.
60
1160002
Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 544-45 (1985).
issue.
V.
61
1160002
him because, he says, the Judicial Inquiry Commission violated
held:
62
1160002
source had indicated that charges would be filed against Chief
as to this issue.
VI.
provides:
that this Court "'has repeatedly held that when it reviews the
63
1160002
record of the proceedings of the Court of the Judiciary on the
Judiciary.'"
64
1160002
in January 2013. The Court of the Judiciary was also
Judiciary.
Moore does not argue that other similarly situated judges have
65
1160002
Conclusion
AFFIRMED.
66