Legal briefs

Separation of powers

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, recently issued the Supreme Court’s 2024 year-end report on the Federal Judiciary. In it, Roberts is concerned about the independence of the Judiciary. He writes:

…judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, the rulings of judges have shaped the Nation’s development and checked the excesses of the other branches.

Of course, the courts are no more infallible than any other branch. In hindsight, some judicial decisions were wrong, sometimes egregiously wrong. And it was right of critics to say so. In a democracy—especially one like ours with robust First Amendment protections—criticism comes with the territory. It can be healthy.

Unfortunately, not all actors engage in “informed criticism” or anything remotely resembling it. I feel compelled to address four areas of illegitimate activity that, in my view, do threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.

Roberts goes on to note that violence and threats of violence to judges have tripled over the past ten years. In the last five years, U.S. Marshals have investigated over 1,000 credible threats to federal judges. Roberts also expands on what he calls “threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.” He states:

Within the past few years…elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected. Judicial independence is worth preserving..I urge all Americans to appreciate this inheritance from our founding generation and cherish its endurance.

Judicial independence certainly is worth preserving. Violence and intimidation against judges cannot be tolerated. And no policymaker should ever suggest openly disregarding a lawful court order.

On the other hand, the judiciary must do a better job instilling confidence in the system. We do this by following the law and confining judicial activity to deciding discreet cases and controversies.

Crime

I write a fair amount about Chicago’s SAFE-T act. That’s because the law is so terrible it generates a lot of material. For instance, recently the Cook County Sheriff, Tom Dart, complained that he is unable to properly monitor defendants on pre-trial release electronic monitoring. The SAFE-T act strongly encourages pre-trial release. There are approximately 1,500 people on electronic monitoring in Chicago. Some of the most dangerous defendants are on the program, including over 100 people charged with murder or attempted murder. While this electronic monitoring, in theory, provides some measure of security, the rules are so lax, per statute, it is effectively meaningless. Offenders are presumptively confined to their homes, but are allowed to leave for work, school, and things like doctor appointments. In addition, they are allowed two days per week to “move freely.” They must still wear an electronic ankle device during this free time, but it is not monitored in real time, and no real time alerts are sent if they go outside designated areas or overstay their allotted time. The Sheriff says defendants are using this free time to commit crimes. You don’t say? In the past two years, over 200 defendants have been arrested for new crimes while on electronic monitoring, and many others have simply cut off the monitor and are unaccounted for. Sheriff Dart has advised the Courts that he will stop supervising the program on April 1 if changes are not made to make it safer. C’mon, Sheriff, they named it the SAFE-T act. What more do you want? You can read more about it here.

More crime

Also in Chicago, on the eve of Christmas Eve, a guy robbed an ambulance. That’s right, an ambulance. Chicago Fire Department Ambulance Unit 24 was dispatched to the scene of a civilian having respiratory problems. While the EMT’s were treating the patient, a guy came up to the ambulance, told them he had a gun, and took cash from the medics. Luckily for the medics, and not so much for the robber, some firemen were also there. They jumped the guy and held him until the police arrived. Read more here.

Free speech

Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, announced this week that Facebook and Instagram will no longer employ “fact checkers” to moderate user content. This is good news because they weren’t really fact checkers anyway, if such a thing is even possible. Instead, they were part of the censorship-industrial complex dedicated to stamping out conservative viewpoints. In announcing the change, Zuckerberg said, “fact checkers have been too politically biased and have destroyed more trust than they’ve created. What started as a movement to be more inclusive has increasingly been used to shut down opinions and shut out people with different ideas, and it’s gone too far.” The company’s fact checking process will now be replaced with a community notes function, like on the X platform, which uses crowdsourcing to provide alternative views. Free speech is on a much better trajectory lately. Let’s hope it continues in this direction.

As always, thank you Judex readers! Please share this with your friends and ask them to subscribe.