Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, No. 00-14137

• Decision Date: 27 March 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-14137,Docket No. 00-00976,CV-D-N
• Citation: Butler v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission, 245 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001)
• Parties: (11th Cir. 2001) ROBERT BUTLER, W. THOMAS GAITHER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION, RANDALL L. COLE, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellants. D. C
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1257

245 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2001)

ROBERT BUTLER, W. THOMAS GAITHER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.THE ALABAMA JUDICIAL INQUIRY COMMISSION, RANDALL L. COLE, in his official capacity, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 00-14137

D. C. Docket No. 00-00976 CV-D-N

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

March 27, 2001

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

Before EDMONDSON, HILL and GIBSON^*, Circuit Judges.

EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:

The Constitution of the United States of America is the supreme law of this country.Both state courts and federal courts have the authority and the duty to enforce the federal Constitution.This case is one in which the federal courts were invited to become involved in a controversy that was already before a state court and also invited to stop the state court proceeding.So, questions of federalism and abstention are presented.

Justice Harold See, an Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, attacks a state judicial canon adopted and approved by the state supreme court.He has asked a federal court to declare the canon invalid under the federal Constitution.¹Because great concerns of comity and federalism tower over this case, we must proceed cautiously.As federal judges, we will interfere with the state proceeding only if it is clear to us that the state forum is inadequate to hear Justice See's challenges based on the United States Constitution.Because we, at this time, are uncertain about the adequacy of the state forum, we are glad to ask the Supreme Court of Alabama to explain some Alabama law to us.SeeLehman Bros. v. Schein, 94 S. Ct. 1741, 1745(1974)(Rehnquist, J., concurring)(suggesting certification appropriate in "unusual circumstances [that] require a federal court having jurisdiction of an action to nonetheless abstain from deciding doubtful questions of state law").

I.

The state of Alabama has developed a comprehensive system to regulate its elected judicial officials.

The Alabama Constitution chargesthe state's highest court with the responsibility of developing and implementing the ethical rules that govern state judges.Ala. Const. of 1901, amend. 328, 6.08(c).On 1 January 1998, the Alabama Supreme Court adopted Canon7(B)(2).Canon7(B)(2) restricts candidates' behavior in judicial elections by prohibiting publication of false information and information that is true but "would be deceiving or misleading to a reasonable person."The Supreme Court approved the rule by an eight to one vote; only Justice See voted against the rule.

The Alabama Constitution vests enforcement of the state's Canons of Judicial Ethics in the Judicial Inquiry Committee("JIC").²If a majority of the JIC determines that a reasonable basis for an ethics violation exists, the JIC may file a complaint with the Court of the Judiciary.³Ala. Const. of 1901, amend. 581, 6.17(b).Once a complaint is filed, a charged judge is temporarily disqualified from judging until the Court of the Judiciary rules on the complaint; in the meantime, the pertinent judge draws his pay.Ala. Const. of 1901, amend. 328, 6.19 ("A judge shall be disqualified from acting as a judge, without loss of salary, while there is pending . . . (2) a complaint against him filed by the judicial inquiry commission with the court of the judiciary.").

As we understand Alabama law, the Court of the Judiciary is a court of limited jurisdiction that operates much like other state trial courts.The court has authority to hear complaints filed by the JIC and may discipline a judge for violating a Canon of Judicial Ethics.⁴.Pursuant to its power under the Alabama Constitution, the Supreme Court has adopted the rules governing the Court of the Judiciary.SeeAla. Const. of 1901, amend. 581, 6.18(c).The general rules of civil procedure and evidence apply, unless otherwise provided.Ala. Ct. of the Jud. R. of Proc. 10.Appeal from the Court of the Judiciary is directly to the state supreme court.Ala. Const. of 1910, amend. 581, 6.18(b).

During his campaign for Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Justice See made comments about another candidate's record.The comments are alleged to have violated Canon7(B)(2)andCanon2(A).A majority of the JIC agreed that a reasonable basis existed to charge Justice See with violating the judicial code.The JIC filed a 3-count complaint against Justice See in the Court of the Judiciary.Pursuant to the Alabama Constitution, Justice See was immediately disqualified from judicial work until the court decided his case.

Justice See made no response to the complaint filed against him with the Court of the Judiciary.Instead, Justice See, three days later, filed a complaint against the JIC in the United States District Court in the Middle District of Alabama.He alleged that the pertinent state judicial canons (both facially and as applied) violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.He also sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing the enforcement of the canons against him and returning him to an active position on the state supreme court.The JIC countered with a motion to dismiss based on abstention principles.The district court granted the TRO and preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss.The federal court order enjoined the JIC from enforcing Canon7(B)(2) and from prosecuting the complaint against Justice See.The district court also prevented the JIC from interfering with Justice See's work on the state supreme court.

II.

The district court's injunction of the ongoing state ethical proceedings raises questions under Younger v. Harris, 91 S. Ct. 746(1971).Younger and its progeny reflect the longstanding national public policy, based on principles of comity and federalism, of allowing state courts to try cases -- already pending in state court -- free from federal court interference.91 S. Ct. at 750.In general, the law on this point is clearly established.See, e.g., Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 116 S. Ct. 1712, 1724(1996);Ohio Civil Rights Comm'n v. Dayton Christian Sch., Inc., 106 S. Ct. 2718, 2722(1986);Old Republic Union Ins. Ct. v. Tills Trucking Co., Inc., 124 F.3d 1258, 1263(11th Cir.1997).As the Court recognized in Younger, "the normal thing to do when federal courts are asked to enjoin pending proceedings in state courts is not to issue such injunctions."Id. at 751.

The Supreme Court also has addressed already the Younger doctrine in the context of state disciplinary proceedings, saying that "[t]he importance of the state interest in the pending state judicial proceedings and in the federal case calls Younger abstention into play."Middlesex County Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Assoc., 102 S. Ct. 2515, 2522-23(1982).Middlesex sets out three benchmarks to guide the application of abstention: "first, do state bar disciplinary hearings within the constitutionally prescribed jurisdiction of the State Supreme Court constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding; second, do the proceedings implicate important state interests; and third, is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges."Id. at 2521(emphasis in original).

The district court concluded, and the parties do not dispute, that the first two elements are satisfied here.The parties disagree, however, about whether the state proceedings in the Court of the Judiciary provide an adequate opportunity for Justice See to raise his federal constitutional challenges.If the state forum is an adequate one in which Justice See may raise his constitutional challenge, then federal courts must abstain.

Justice See bears the burden to establish that the state procedures are inadequate.Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 107 S. Ct. 1519, 1528(1987)."Minimal respect for the state processes, of course, precludes any presumption that the state courts will not safeguard federal constitutional rights."Middlesex County, 102 S. Ct. at 2521(emphasis in original).See alsoTexaco, 107 S. Ct. at 1528("[W]hen a litigant has not attempted to present his federal claims in related state-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that state procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the contrary.").

As the Supreme Court has advised, the "pertinent inquiry is whether the state proceedings afford an adequate opportunity to raise the constitutional claims. . . ."Middlesex County, 102 S. Ct. at 2521, quotingMoore v. Sims, 99 S. Ct. 2371, 2380(1979).In the present case, the district court concluded that no adequate state forum existed in which Justice See might raise his constitutional challenges.The district court also questioned the ability of the Alabama judicial system to consider objectively the merits of this dispute.⁵

Middlesex County provides a useful analogy to this case.In that case, a lawyer was charged with violating New Jersey ethics rules.The New Jersey ethics system operated much like the Alabama system: the state supreme court adopted the ethics rules; the ethics committee, composed of attorneys and non- attorneys, reviewed complaints, made a recommendation, and referred the case to a disciplinary review board for a decision; and review of the board's decision was to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The Middlesex lawyer made no response to the state proceedings.Instead, the lawyer filed an action in federal court challenging the disciplinary rules as violative of the First Amendment.The district court dismissed based on Younger, and the Supreme Court affirmed.In concluding that adequate opportunity existed for the plaintiff to raise his challenges in the New Jersey court system, the Supreme Court noted the "unique relationship" shared between the state supreme court and the ethics committee.Id. at 2523.Unlike the case...