Archive for the ‘Jurisdiction’ category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Minnesota bill would cut judicial funding for every dollar court orders state to pay

March 21st, 2012

Bills that would prohibit courts from ordering or directing the expenditure of state funds are nothing new. When courts have ordered increased funding, for schools for example, there has been anecdotal evidence that court budgets have been reduced in retaliation. Minnesota’s SB 2454, however, adds a new twist: direct and explicit fiscal retaliation against the courts for any such order.

The bill contains two provisions. The first is the general prohibition on the court ordering of expenditures.

A court may not: (1) order the governor, an executive branch agency, or the legislature to spend money or to otherwise incur a financial obligation; or (2) appropriate money unless pursuant to an enacted law.

The unique element is in the second clause.

Reduction in court budget; determination by commissioner of management and budget. If the commissioner of management and budget determines that money has been paid out of the state treasury as a result of a court order directing that money be spent to continue the operation of a state function in the absence of an appropriation, the commissioner shall reduce the current general fund operating budget appropriation to the court by the amount determined. If no operating budget for the court has been enacted, the commissioner shall make the specified reduction in the next enacted court budget.

The bill seems to stem from instances in 2011 and 2005. There, the state failed to pass a budget by the constitutional deadline, leading to partial government shutdowns. The courts were requested to step in and order at least some “essential services” be maintained. In 2011 this prompted several bills that would have defined “essential services” and curtailed the judiciary’s power to order some funding.

SB 2454 is currently pending in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Salary & Budget

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

March 20th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The last several weeks in the examination bans on court use of sharia/international law have seen something new: while such bans have been voted down in committee before for t he first time authors are starting to withdraw the bills outright.

Minnesota’s SB 2281 was withdrawn the day it was introduced. According to WCCO TV:

Before the bill was even introduced, the author, Republican Dave Thompson pulled it. “It was never my intent to introduce legislation that was being targeted to any one group,” said Thompson.

The second bill was New Jersey’s AB 919 (introduced in the 2010/2011 session as AB 3496). Introduced January 10 of this year, the bill was withdrawn last week. The NJ Assembly Republicans blog on March 13 quotes the bill’s author (GOP Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi):

In the climate of what has been transpiring in the Muslim community in New Jersey, they were concerned it would further, in their view, portray Muslims in a negative light. After sitting and listening to their concerns, I agreed to withdraw it.

The legislature’s website, however, does not yet show the bill has having been formally withdrawn. (No direct link to bill status page, follow this link and search for bill AB 919).

The other activity was in Kansas. SB 79, as originally introduced, had nothing to do with international law or sharia. Instead, it made a modification to an existing state program that helped courts recover fees/fines owed. That bill passed the Senate unanimously.

Yesterday (March 19) the House changed the bill entirely. The House substitute for SB 79 simply replicates the language of HB 2087, which the House had passed in 2011 and the Senate had declined to advance.

Readers may recognize this tactic on the part of the Kansas House. When the House approved bills to end merit selection for the state’s Court of Appeals, bills the Senate did not take up, the House started to add provisions to unrelated bills (see here, here, and here). The difference here is that rather than tacking on the new provision to the existing bill, this effort simply replaces the text of the bill entirely.

Full roster of 41 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Bills withdrawn in Minnesota and New Jersey, Kansas House attaches ban to unrelated bill

3 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Idaho House bill would require state court approval of all federal tax liens

March 15th, 2012

It is not often (if ever) that state courts sit in judgment of federal actions. The last several years, however, have seen several such efforts, including bills to create a civil right of action against federal employees and law enforcement for failure to follow various and sundry state laws as they relate to healthcare.

Idaho’s HB 666, however, takes a different tack. Under its provisions, no federal tax lien would be allowed to be filed in the state without first being approved by a state court judge.

Neither the state of Idaho nor any state court shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and neither shall the state of Idaho nor any state court deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the law. Due process of law shall occur in perfecting and attaching proceeds from a lien if the amount attached is five thousand dollars ($5,000) or more by a district court or if the amount attached is less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) by a magistrate court.

The bill was introduced yesterday (March 14) and is awaiting committee assignment.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

March 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.
If February was the active month for legislative bans on court use of sharia/international law, March may turn out to be the quiet month.

Yesterday (March 12) South Dakota’s governor signed into law HB 1253 which reads “No court, administrative agency, or other governmental agency may enforce any provisions of any religious code.”

The other activity, or lack thereof, was in Florida where that state’s multiple efforts failed to advance before that legislature adjourned. (Missouri’s Rules Committee passage was more procedural than substantive).

The possibility of any other state advancing such bans is diminishing; already many proposals have failed to meet internal legislative deadlines to advance out of their committees or chambers of origin (so-called “crossover” days).

Full roster of 39 40 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

Update 3/13/12 10:40 a.m.: Minnesota SB 2281 added
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: South Dakota governor signs, dead in Florida, failing to advance in any other states

5 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

March 2nd, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

Like the two weeks before it, these last two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Three new bills introduced: Georgia SR 926 (Constitutional Amendment), Iowa SB 2158 (the Senate version of HB 575 introduced last year and still pending), and Mississippi HB 698. The Mississippi bill is interesting; despite the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decision in January 2012 that overturned a similar Oklahoma initiative because it cited sharia by name, HB 698 specifically cites to sharia as well in its definition of “foreign law” the use of which is prohibited in the state’s courts by the bill.
  • South Dakota’s heavily modified version (“No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”) was approved by both chambers and is now on the desk of the state’s Governor.
  • Bans in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, and New Hampshire met with committee approval, while Florida HB 1209 was approved by the full House yesterday (March 1).

Full roster of 39 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.
» Read more: Bans on court use of sharia/international law: On South Dakota governor’s desk; advancing in legislative committees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, New Hampshire

2 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Utah Senate OK’s plan to substantially revise state’s justice courts

March 1st, 2012

For the third time in five years, Utah’s legislature appears on the verge of making substantial revision’s the state’s justice courts.

First, some background.

In 2008, the legislature (SB 72) asserted more state-level control over these justice courts and their judges, requiring judges graduate college, be elected, and be subject to the state’s judicial performance evaluation program. In 2011, additional changes were made.  Under SB 143, candidates for justice court judgeships could run as a candidate for more than one justice court judge office. It also removed the requirement that all registered voters in a county vote in the retention election of a county justice court judge and removed the requirement that the governing bodies of a county and a municipality within that county both concur when a justice court judge is permitted to hold office as both a county and a municipal justice court judge. It removed the authorization for a justice court judge to order administrative traffic checkpoints and issue search warrants.

Now in 2012 comes SB 200. This bill

  • establishes and amends procedures to establish and expand the territorial jurisdiction of justice courts
  • amends and consolidates the minimum operating standards of justice courts
  • amends the Judicial Council’s authority to establish rules and procedures concerning the creation and expansion of justice courts
  • provides for uniform fees of the justice courts
  • requires every prospective justice court judge to attend an orientation program conducted under the direction of the Judicial Council before the justice court can be certified and qualified to hold office
  • authorizes the governing body of a justice court to create specialized calendars and exempts judges who hear these calendars from being assigned at random
  • modifies the procedures and penalties for failure to comply with continuing education requirements
  • modifies the procedures and penalties for failure to comply with compensation limits, limits on secondary employment, and limits on holding elected or political offices and requires the Judicial Council to file a formal complaint for violations
  • amends the procedures to appoint a temporary justice court judge and prohibits a retired justice court judge from serving as a temporary justice court judge
  • modifies and establishes new standards for when and where a municipality and county may hold justice court and authorizes the Judicial Council to determine when and where justice courts my hold court.

The changes were approved by full Senate 2/29/12 and are now in the House awaiting committee assignment

No comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Qualification & Terms, Rule Making Authority, Salary & Budget, Selection, Structure Changes

Tags:

New Jersey legislators once again attempt to adopt constitutional amendment allowing for legislative “override” of judicial decisions, require use of original intent interpretation

February 28th, 2012

As I mentioned last year, Rick Perry’s idea of allowing legislatures to “override” or vote to overturn judicial decisions is not particularly new. Two states, Montana and New Jersey, have debated the concept for years.

Undaunted by the fact that not a single version of the bill has even advanced to a committee hearing, members of the New Jersey Assembly have nevertheless reintroduced ACR 102, permitting (among other things) the legislature to override the state’s judiciary.

Specifically, it would add a new section IX to the state’s judiciary article (Article VI).

a. As the people possess the exclusive authority to ordain or amend constitutions, all courts shall interpret this Constitution in a manner consistent with the intention of the people when ordaining or amending the same. Any court which declares an act of government contrary to the provisions of the Constitution shall do so in writing, setting forth in specific detail the section violated and the history of the provision which supports the decision. No court shall expand a constitutional provision beyond, nor constrict a constitutional provision below, the scope actually intended by the people. Furthermore, as the power of the purse is solely that of the Legislature, no court shall issue any decision, whether under this Constitution or otherwise, which shall have the effect of compelling the State or any of its subdivisions to expend any money, or restraining the expenditure thereof, without the express consent of the Legislature.

b. The Legislature may review any decision to determine if the decision violates the provisions of subsection a. of this constitutional amendment or is otherwise inconsistent with the intent of the Legislature. The Legislature may invalidate the decision, in whole or in part, by a vote of a two-thirds majority of the authorized membership of each House in favor of a concurrent resolution providing for invalidation.

The concurrent resolution has been sent to the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Introduced in Mississippi and Kentucky, advancing in Florida & South Dakota, dying in Virginia

February 13th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

The two weeks since my last update in this area have been particularly busy. Of note:

  • Mississippi’s introduction of HB 2 and Kentucky’s HB 386 brings to 22 (versus 24 states in 2011) the number of states to have a bill banning the use of international law/sharia by state courts in 2012
  • South Dakota has heavily modified their bills and achieved committee approval with a single sentence statute: “No court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative mediation or enforcement authority may render any judgment predicated on any religious code or enforce any provisions of any religious code.”
  • Virginia’s bans, while initially appearing to be advancing, were deferred into the 2013 legislative session.

Full roster of 36 bills introduced and their statuses after the jump.

11 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags:

Oklahoma becomes third state this year to consider stripping its state Supreme Court of power of judicial review

February 2nd, 2012

First it was New Hampshire, then Tennessee, now Oklahoma’s legislature is considering removing the power of its state courts to strike down statutes as unconstitutional.

Under the recently introduced SJR 84, the state’s Supreme Court would be banned from reviewing any law enacted by the legislature. However, unlike the other states, this proposal does allow for an “Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review” to rule on. The amendment, in full, reads:

The Supreme Court shall not have the power of judicial review over the constitutionality of laws enacted in this state. An Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review shall be created to rule on the constitutionality of such enacted laws.

There is no indication of how this “Ad Hoc Court of Constitutional Review” would be formed, its membership, or any other details.

The amendment has been prefiled in the Senate awaiting the legislature’s return to session next week.

1 comment »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Structure Changes

Tags:

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: 33 bills in 20 states to start 2012; review of all efforts since 2010

January 30th, 2012

This post has been updated. Click here.

2012 marks the third year in a row to see major legislative efforts to ban state courts from using sharia or international law. A recap:

2010

Write up of all 2010 efforts here

2010 saw three efforts make their way out of their respective legislatures. The Oklahoma constitutional amendment would never take force, having been struck down by a federal district court, a determination upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in January 2012.

  • Louisiana HB 785 & SB 460: “Foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the United States.
  • Oklahoma HJR 1056 (Constitutional Amendment): Prohibits the courts to “look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law or international law.” Requires courts adhere only to the U.S. & Oklahoma Constitutions, federal and state law and regulations, and where necessary the laws and regulations of another state.
  • Tennessee HB 3768 & SB 3740: Defines “law, legal code, or legal system” means a law, legal code, or legal system used or applied in any jurisdiction outside of Tennessee, including any foreign state, jurisdiction, country or territory of the United States…Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, and subject to provisions of superseding federal treaties, any otherwise enforceable contract which incorporates any substantive or procedural law, legal code or legal system of another state, foreign jurisdiction or foreign country that would violate rights and privileges granted under the United States or Tennessee Constitution is declared to be against public policy of this state and is unenforceable in this state.

2011

Write up of all 2011 efforts here

Despite having far more bills introduced in 2011 than in 2010, there was only one such piece of legislation enacted

  • Arizona HB 2064 Defines “foreign law” as “any law, rule or legal code or system other than the constitution, laws and ratified treaties of the united states and the territories of the united states, or the constitution and laws of this state….a court, arbitrator, administrative agency or other adjudicative, mediation or enforcement authority shall not enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the constitution of this state or of the united states or conflict with the laws of the united states or of this state.”

2012

15 sharia/international law bans were carried over from the 2011 session. Combined with 18 newly introduced bills this puts the issue front and center for the 2012 sessions. Already there has been activity, with the Florida Senate Judiciary Committee giving its approval to a ban.

Full roster of 33 bills introduced in 2012 in 20 states and their statuses after the jump.

8 comments »

Posted in Jurisdiction, Other, Special Edition

Tags: