SUPREME COURT ELECTS NEW CHIEF JUSTICE
[Posted August 18, 2014] The
justices of the Supreme Court this morning elected Justice Donald Lemons to
serve as the next chief justice, beginning January 1, 2015. Justice Lemons will
take over the center chair effective with the retirement of Chief Justice
Cynthia Kinser on December 31.
Justice Lemons is second in
seniority on the court, so he also would have been the next chief if the court
had not changed its method of selection from tenure to election, back in 2002.
Given his demonstrated commitment to professionalism, and its critical
component, civility, I expect the court to emphasize those qualities to bench
and bar over the next four years.
Here's the text of the court's announcement:
PRESS RELEASE - August 18, 2014
The Supreme Court of Virginia Announces the Election of the Honorable Donald W. Lemons as Chief Justice-Elect
Today, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Virginia elected Justice Donald W. Lemons as Chief Justice-elect. Chief Justice-elect Lemons will succeed Chief Justice Cynthia D. Kinser, who has served one term as Chief Justice and will retire from the Court on December 31, 2014.
Chief Justice-elect Lemons will assume office on January 1, 2015. He was elected by the General Assembly to the Supreme Court ofVirginia in 2000 and again in 2012. Previously, Chief Justice-elect Lemons served as a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia and the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond.
He received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Virginia. After receiving his law degree, he served as Assistant Dean and Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law. Thereafter, he has served on the faculties of the University of Richmond School of Law and Washington and Lee University School of Law.
Chief Justice-elect Lemons has held leadership roles in numerous legal and civic organizations, including serving as the President of the American Inns of Court. Current Chief Justice Kinser remarked that "Chief Justice-elect Lemons is a dedicated jurist who exemplifies integrity, civility, and professionalism. He will lead the judiciary with distinction during the next four years. I look forward to working with him to effect a smooth transition."
UPDATE ON RECENT APPELLATE DEVELOPMENTS
[Posted August 13, 2014]
While I’ve been busy crafting and filing brief after brief, the appellate world
has been moving apace. Here are some recent significant developments that you
may have missed.
Bostic stay denied
When a panel of the Fourth
Circuit decided Bostic v. Rainey on a
2-1 vote recently, it affirmed a district court’s finding that Virginia’s ban on
same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. This portended a swift appeal to the
Supreme Court – in fact, one party has already done that – but in the interim,
the question arose, what effect will the ruling have pending the appeal?
One of the likely appellants
sought a stay of the effect of the ruling, and Virginia’s Attorney General joined that
request, although he had urged affirmance. I’ve seen the AG’s brief on this,
and it’s very well-written.
But it wasn’t enough. Today,
the same panel that decided the appeal refuses to stay the mandate, by the same
2-1 vote. This means that the mandate will issue, and same-sex marriage will be
immediately available, on Thursday, August 21, unless a justice of the Supreme
Court decides to stay the matter pending the appeal.
Regardless of your position
on the merits of these issues, please be assured that today’s order is very
consequential. At least, it will be in the event the justices overturn the
Fourth’s judgment. Couples who wed the next day will bring several complex
issues into play. For example, if a couple marries and take title to land as
tenants by the entireties, and the Supreme Court later upholds Virginia’s ban,
how do the two then hold title?
In case you’re wondering,
the order gives no detail as to the judges’ thinking on why the stay was
denied. Here’s the “guts” of the order, in full: “Upon consideration of
submissions relative to the motion to stay mandate, the court denies the
motion. Entered at the direction of Judge Floyd with the concurrence of Judge Gregory.
Judge Niemeyer voted to grant the motion.”
Local Rule 41 makes it clear
that the court disfavors stays, and the panel majority simply didn't find the
reasons offered to be compelling. The same rule doesn't apply across the Potomac; in my opinion, it's likely that the Chief Justice will stay the enforcement while the Supreme Court decides the case.
The Fourth gets a new jurist
On July 28, the Senate
confirmed the nomination of Pamela Harris to bring the court up to full
strength. Judge Harris will replace Judge Andre Davis, who took senior status after
serving for less than five years.
A get-with-it rule change
I saw today in Virginia Lawyers Weekly a notice that
the State Bar is seeking comment on rule changes that will exile the Luddite
defense in attorney-discipline proceedings. According to Peter Vieth’s story,
the new rule would require lawyers to stay up-to-date on “the benefits and
risks associated with technology relevant to the lawyer’s practice…” The Bar
also wants comment on an amendment to RPC 1.6, to deal with unauthorized
disclosure of, or access to, confidential information.
A full discussion of tech-age
confidentiality is beyond the scope of this limited note. I’m not qualified to
comment, for example, on whether maintaining records in the cloud satisfies the
new rule (or even the old one). But on the assumption that these changes, or
something like them, will be approved, you can no longer avoid being an
e-lawyer. Of course, if you can mass enough opposition and send a flood of
adverse comments to VSB Executive Director Karen Gould, then maybe – just maybe
– you can get the rule changes postponed until your retirement date. Good luck
with that, by the way.
A look way
For those of you who are ABA members, there’s an
article in the just-issued Judges Journal
entitled, “Appellate Practice: The Next 50 Years.” Unless you’re a very young
attorney, you aren’t likely to still be in the trenches at the end of that stretch; but the piece is
still worth reading in order to see what’s on and over the horizon.
A published en banc denial
Lots of unsuccessful
appellate litigants ask the courts of appeal for rehearing. The refusal of such
a petition is rarely newsworthy, but the Fourth Circuit recently published an
order that was accompanied by competing opinions – one dissent, once
concurrence – on the refusal. In US v. Umana, originally published yesterday,
and amended today, the full court refused to take up an appellant’s contention
that he was denied his Sixth Amendment rights. Umana was convicted in a double
murder. At a sentencing hearing, the court allowed out-of-court statements from
police informants that he had been involved in several other murders.
Isn’t the Sixth Amendment
supposed to prevent that, by requiring confrontation? In the guilt phase, yes;
but way back in the Truman Administration, the Big Supremes held that you don’t
have the right to be confronted by your accusers in sentencing proceedings. Today’s
dissenters recognize that 1949 ruling, but argue that it’s been overtaken by a
sea change of more recent SCOTUS jurisprudence. The dissent urged the full
court to take the case, if only to create a circuit split that would make cert
Judge Wilkinson writes the concurrence
in order to refute the dissent. His opinion stretches over several pages, but
here’s the real bottom line, in a quote from a 1989 Supreme Court decision:
a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest
on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should
follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court
the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.
Judge Wilkinson describes
this directive as “pure ice,” and I agree. Even so, one of the express purposes
of the dissenting opinion is to plow the appellant’s road to Washington, and I think it does that. At
issue is the simple question whether that 1949 decision is now dead law. For
now, it’s still among the breathing.
FOURTH CIRCUIT DECIDES BOSTIC V. RAINEY
[Posted July 28, 2014] The
Fourth Circuit has affirmed the district court’s ruling in Bostic v. Rainey, the challenge to Virginia’s prohibition of same-sex
marriages. This ruling strikes down Virginia’s
constitutional and statutory ban of such marriages. Here is a link to the slip opinion,
which I’m reading now; I may add some comments after I finish. The decision is
2-1, with Judge Niemeyer dissenting from the majority, which was written by
Judge Floyd, joined by Judge Gregory.
In answer to your question,
the answer is yes: This case will indeed be appealed across the Potomac.