Fair Courts
One of our nation's great achievements is an independent judiciary charged to defend fundamental principles of American constitutional democracy. Fair and impartial courts fulfill that trust by checking abuses of government power, promoting equal justice and the rule of law, and protecting individual and minority rights.
In recent years, the ability of courts to safeguard these core democratic values has been jeopardized by the increasing influence of money on judicial elections, attacks on judges and judicial power, and the failure of current selection systems to produce diversity on the bench. Public confidence in a judiciary that is not only independent but also accountable for its conduct has been placed at risk by the erosion of judicial ethics.
The Center's Fair Courts Project works to preserve fair and impartial courts and their role as the ultimate guarantor of equal justice in our constitutional democracy. Our research, public education, and advocacy focus on improving selection systems (including elections), increasing diversity on the bench, promoting measures of accountability that are appropriate for judges, and keeping courts in balance with other governmental branches.
Fair Courts E-lerts
We publish a weekly email newsletter with a roundup of developments concerning judges and the judiciary. Read it online or subscribe.
Foreword by Professor Burt Neuborne
In Kirk v. Carpeneti, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will determine if Alaska’s judicial selection system violates the federal Equal Protection Clause. The Brennan Center filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit, defending Alaska’s merit selection system.
Justice Brent Benjamin of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia refused to recuse himself from the appeal of a $50 million jury verdict in this case, even though the CEO of the lead defendant spent $3 million supporting his campaign. Did Benjamin’s failure to recuse violate the Due Process Clause?
The Brennan Center is intervening to help defend the nation’s first voluntary full public financing program for judicial elections.
Depoliticizing the bench: Challenges to nonpartisan judicial selection methods in Arizona, plus a suit to separate the Judiciary from the Legislature in South Carolina.
Vanishing Recusal Prospects in Wisconsin
“I’m just dumbfounded,” stammered Justice Ann Walsh Bradley of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. This was Thursday, January 21, the same day the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated ruling in Citizens United, which easily eclipsed the unfolding drama in Wisconsin. Justice Bradley’s words were in response to the state court’s anguished position on the recusal of high court judges, a position that’s brought only disappointment since October 2009.
Is it a constitutional problem if a judge presides over the case of a corporate CEO who spent three million dollars to elect the judge in question? The Supreme Court faced just this question last term…Now, less than a year later, the Supreme Court is poised to open the floodgates to a volume of corporate spending in judicial elections that could make three million dollars look like a drop in the bucket.
Illustrations by Risko
Supreme Court Reverses Decision in Caperton v. Massey
Major victory for the Rule of Law and Due Process with Supreme Court’s 5–4 vote.
Ten Best Practices to Increase Women and Minority Jurists
Brennan Center releases Improving Judicial Diversity, a revealing examination of the appointive systems in ten states.
Testimony of Adam Skaggs on MD Judicial Elections and Senate Bill 833
The subject of today’s hearing on Senate Bill 833, would conform the selection of Maryland’s circuit court judges with the selection system used to choose other judges in Maryland. In particular, Senate Bill 833 would replace contested elections with a system of appointment and retention elections.
Letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court Regarding its Proposed Revisions to Recusal Petitions
On January 21, 2010, Brennan Center counsel Adam Skaggs, along with Justice at Stake’s Bert Brandenburg, submitted a letter to the Wisconsin Supreme Court urging it to reject recently proposed revisions to the state Code of Judicial Conduct.
Testimony of Adam Skaggs to House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy
Adam Skaggs submits written testimony to the House Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy regarding the state of judicial recusals after Caperton v. A.T. Massey
2009-2010 State Judicial Reform Efforts
State Judicial Reform After Caperton v. Massey
Diversifying the Bench in Kansas
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy speaks about judicial diversity in Kansas at an event organized by the League of Women Voters.
On August 4, 2009, Ciara Torres-Spelliscy spoke about the importance of judicial diversity at an event held at the National Press Club and sponsored by the American Constitution Society.