Gavel to Gavel » Tennessee

Tennessee legislator withdraws bill to end judicial review in the state

Bill Raftery — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 01:05:20 +0000

A bill introduced by the chair of the Tennessee Senate’s Judiciary Committee that would have ended judicial review of state laws has been withdrawn. According to the Tennessee Bar Association’s TBA Today, the Senator’s proposal “to control out-of-control courts” faced opposition from both sides of the aisle. Other bills withdrawn by the Senator along with the ban on judicial review were ones that exempted all Tennessee-made goods from federal regulation under the commerce clause and required all presidential candidates prove they are natural born citizens.

Tennessee bill would end judicial review of all statutes, but loophole might allow Court of Appeals & Court of Criminal Appeals to hear such cases

Bill Raftery — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:37:04 +0000

A Tennessee legislator is attempting to do by simple statute what New Hampshire legislators are attempting to do by state constitutional amendment, namely, ending judicial review of state statutes.

Under SB 2348 as introduced, the Supreme Court, Circuit Courts, and Criminal Courts “shall have no jurisdiction to determine the constitutionality of a statute which has been properly enacted by the general assembly and become law in accordance with Article II, § 18 and Article III, § 18 of the Tennessee constitution.” A similar provision applies against the state’s Chancery Courts.

The bill is curious for two reasons.

First is the question of whether or not a mere statute can strip the courts of the power of judicial review (as noted, the New Hampshire parallel would be a state constitutional amendment).

The second is that while the state’s highest court (Supreme) and general jurisdiction trial courts (Circuit, Criminal, Chancery) are cited by name, the state’s intermediate appellate courts (Court of Appeals on the civil side and the Court of Criminal Appeals) are not.

For example, the change to the Supreme Court would be an amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 16-3-201 which discusses the supreme court’s jurisdiction in general. Similarly cited are Section 16-10-101 (Circuit and Criminal Court – General Jurisdiction) and Section 4-5-225 (providing review of the validity or applicability of a statute lies in a suit for a declaratory judgment in the chancery court of Davidson County, unless otherwise specifically provided by statute.)

Missing are any changes to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals (16-4-108) and the Court of Criminal Appeals (16-5-108).

In addition, absolutely no mention is made of the state’s other courts (General Sessions, Probate, Juvenile, and Municipal).

Now Tennessee considers drug testing judges

Bill Raftery — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 21:01:49 +0000

I noted several weeks ago the press by some elected officials to drug test welfare recipients is leading other legislators to want to drug test elected officials (including judges). Now Tennessee is considering such a proposal but, rather than citing to drug testing welfare recipients, is citing the state’s drug-free workplace laws.

Under Section 1 of HB 2432 as introduced, the speakers of the House and Senate would be required to create a drug-testing regime for members of the General Assembly “consistent with the provisions for a drug free workplace under title 50, chapter 9″ and specifically cites Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-9-106(a)(1), which authorizes private employers to conduct drug tests.

Section 2 of the bill goes on to require the Tennessee Ethics Commission “develop and implement a system for drug testing all persons who are elected to public office”, again citing 50-9-106(a)(1).

Because judges in Tennessee are “elected to public office” (through partisan or non-partisan election at the trial and a merit selection/retention election system at the appellate level) they would appear to be covered under Section 2 as “elected to public office.” Section 3, however, confusingly does not specifically require the Supreme Court administer such a program, but the court is “urged” to do so.

The Tennessee supreme court is urged to develop and implement a system for drug testing all persons who are elected to judicial office. The system should provide for the testing of elected public officials in a manner consistent with the provisions for a drug free workplace under title 50, chapter 9. The expenses of the system may be paid from applicable accounts of the judiciary for official purposes.

Jury nullification bills: active in 2011, moving in 2012?

Bill Raftery — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 17:26:15 +0000

The issue of jury nullification has come back up into the news lately, but it has been peculating in state legislatures for the last several years. New Hampshire nearly passed a law in 2011 and may yet do so in 2012 that would have required judges instruct jurors about the power to nullify.

2012

Iowa HB 542 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

Iowa SB 318 Establishes the right of the jury to be absolute and not to be limited by the rules of civil or criminal procedure, the juror’s oath, a court order, or a procedure or practice of the court. Permits party to present evidence relating to the merit, intent, constitutionality, or applicability of the law in a case; the motive, moral perspective, or circumstances of the defendant; the degree and direction of guilt or actual harm done in the case; and the punishment or sanction which may be applied to the losing party in the case. Carried over from 2011 session.

New Hampshire HB 146 AS AMENDED: Provides in all court proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relationship to the facts in controversy. Provides the court shall permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right to the jury. Approved on voice vote by full House 3/15/11. Rejected by Senate Judiciary Committee on tie (2-2) vote 5/26/11. Rejected by full Senate 8-12 on 6/1/11. Re-referred to Senate Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 Requires, in any criminal jury trial, the trial judge to inform jurors with the following statement, verbatim “In Tennessee and throughout America, jurors possess the responsibility and fundamental right to judge the facts and the law in any court. Jurors are empowered to decide if a law is just, moral, and constitutional. Additionally, jurors are empowered to decide if that law has been violated. A verdict of ‘Guilty’ condemns the defendant, and a verdict of ‘Not Guilty’ absolves the defendant of any wrongdoing. The juror’s conscience dictates the exercise of this power.” Carried over into 2012 session.

2011

Iowa HB 542 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Iowa SB 318 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Montana HB 332 Provides parties have the right to argue to the jurors that a law is unconstitutional, is unconstitutional as applied, or should be nullified for any other reason. Provides upon request by a party, the court in any jury trial shall inform the jurors that the jurors may judge both the facts and the law in the case. Provides denial of the instruction is reversible error. Tabled by House Judiciary Committee 18-2 on 2/21/11.

New Hampshire HB 146 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

Tennessee HB 1831 (see above) Carried over into 2012 session.

2010

New Hampshire HB 1347 Provides that in all criminal proceedings the court shall instruct the jury of its inherent right to judge the law as well as the facts and to nullify any and all actions they find to be unjust. Provides the court is also mandated to permit the defendant or counsel for the defendant to explain this right of jury nullification to the jury. Rejected by House Judiciary Committee 13-7 on 2/2/10. Rejected by full House 234-113 on 2/17/11.

2009

Alaska HB 140 Provides a defendant has the right to inform the jury of the jury’s power to judge the just application of the law and to vote on the verdict according to conscience. Further provides failure to allow the defendant to inform the jury of the jury’s power is grounds for a mistrial. Died in House Judiciary Committee.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: Pennsylvania bill introduced

Bill Raftery — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 15:57:08 +0000

Welcome New York Times readers!

Welcome Post-Gazette readers!

Since the last update of this list in October, one piece of legislation has been introduced. Pennsylvania’s HB 2029 bans court references to any “foreign legal code or system” if doing so would impair constitutional rights.

Full roster of 2010 bills are available. 2011 and 2012 bills after the jump.

2012

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill	Provisions	Status	Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama HB 607 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 61 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
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.”	Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.	No
Arizona HB 2582	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures.	Died in House when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment)	Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment)	(Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.”	Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SB 97	Prohibits any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Florida HB 1273	Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Florida SB 1294	Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Indiana HB 1078	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 298	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 520	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Maine HB 811	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal system against a natural person in this State is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this State guaranteed by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.”	Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.	No
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.	Probably
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “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.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.	Probably
Mississippi HB 301	Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Mississippi HB 525	Provides “”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.”	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 708	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of this state and the United States.	Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 768	Defines “foreign law” as “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.” Provides “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.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri SB 308	Defines “”foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
New Jersey AB 3496	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session.	No
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Pennsylvania HB 2029	Provides a tribunal shall not consider a foreign legal code or system which does not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Pennsylvania.	In House Judiciary Committee	Yes
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.	Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.	No
South Dakota SB 201	Declares “foreign law, legal code, or system, means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.”	Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.	No
Texas HB 274	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.	No
Texas HB 911	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 999	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 1240	Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.”	Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 3027	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session)	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.	No
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment)	Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law.	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No

Tennessee Government Operations Joint Subcommittee on Judiciary and Government examined judicial selection, judicial discipline

Bill Raftery — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 21:12:25 +0000

Tennessee’s Government Operations Joint Subcommittee on Judiciary and Government met on November 15 to examine a variety of issues already discussed in previous interim meetings. The morning session examined:

The state’s Court of the Judiciary, the judicial disciplinary body for Tennessee
Judicial Nominating Commission
Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission

Media coverage indicated legislators intended on becoming very involved in all these bodies in the 2012 session.

The afternoon session focused on:

Tennessee Residence Commission
State Capitol Commission
Department of General Services
Tennessee Emergency Management Agency and Related Compacts

Tennessee: Constitutional showdown over recusal statutes?

Bill Raftery — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:19:06 +0000

Greetings TBA Today readers!

According to this post from Gavel Grab, the Tennessee legislature is considering a legislative enactment regarding judicial recusal. For prior blog posts on events in Tennessee, click here and here. For a review of all recent efforts to make changes to Codes of Judicial Conduct, see Issue 5:31.

The Gavel Grab post cites this Knoxville News Sentinel article, as follows:

Legislators are eyeing repeal of the state law that allows keeping the admonishments wayward judges receive secret and imposing stricter rules concerning when judges must bow out of a case when accused of a conflict of interest.

…

Changing the rules for recusal of a judge, which are now established by the state Supreme Court, also is criticized on policy grounds. But it could also be a violation of the state constitution, according to Chris Craft, presiding judge of the Court of the Judiciary (COJ).

As I noted in my article “’The Legislature Must Save the Court From Itself?’: Recusal, Separation of Powers, and the Post-Caperton World” in the Drake Law Review, it is not unheard of for legislatures to try and impose by law recusal standards for state courts. Moreover, it is also not unheard of for the same courts to strike down the laws as a violation of the state constitution. I suggested four possible outcomes: Cooperation, Co-option, Comity, and Conflict.

Missouri had a similar instance in the late 1990s which was decidedly in the Conflict category. There, the legislature tried to expand a 1978 recusal statute (Mo. Ann. Stat. 105.464).

The expansion was struck down by the state’s Supreme Court on the grounds that its “‘general superintending control over all courts and tribunals’” and power to “‘establish rules relating to the practice, procedure, and pleading for all courts,’” rendered the expansion a “violat[ion of] constitutional principles concerning separation of legislative and judicial functions.” (Weinstock v. Holden, 995 S.W.2d 408, 410–11 (Mo. 1999) (per curiam)).

A few weeks after Weinstock was handed down, the legislature adopted a repeal of the expansion, but kept in place the original 1978 statute that imposed criminal sanctions for judges who heard cases in which they were related to a party.

So, will Tennessee end up in Cooperation, Co-option, Comity, or Conflict? We’ll see when the legislature comes back on January 10 or even earlier if a bill is filed before session starts.

Bans on court use of sharia/international law: list of all bills since 2010, new 2011 Michigan bill, first 2012 bill prefiled

Bill Raftery — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 15:27:57 +0000

This post has been updated. Click here.

Since the last update of this list in August, two pieces of legislation have been introduced. Michigan’s SB 701 appears to be the Senate version of HB 4769, which has gone nowhere since its June introduction.

The other bill is Alabama SB 33 of 2012, a prefiled bill for the next session. SB 33 of 2012 is a constitutional amendment that looks more like HB 607 / SB 61 than HB 597 / SB 62 in that it does not specifically mention “sharia”.

It should be noted that at least some 2011 bills will make a return in 2012; roughly half of states allow bills to be “carried over” from one session to the next. Definitive answers as to which bills will return will be available as the legislatures come back into session in January.

Full roster of bills going back to 2010 after the jump.

2012

Bill	Provisions	Status
Alabama SB 33 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Prefiled. In House Committee on Judiciary.

2011

Bill	Provisions	Status	Carryover in 2012?
Alabama HB 597 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “the courts…when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama HB 607 (Constitutional Amendment)	Enacts American and Alabama Laws for Alabama Courts Amendment. Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 61 (Constitutional Amendment)	Defines foreign law as “any law, rule, or legal code, or system established, used, or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the states or territories of the United States, or which exist as a separate body of law, legal code, or system adopted or used anywhere by any people, group, or culture different from the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of Alabama.” Provides “A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, arbitrative, or enforcement authority shall not apply or enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate any state law or a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alabama SB 62 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides Alabama courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, established common law, the Code of Alabama 1975, and rules promulgated thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia. The provisions of this subsection shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Approved by Senate Committee on Judiciary 3/24/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Alaska HB 88	Prohibits a court, arbitrator, mediator, administrative agency, or enforcement authority from applying a foreign law if application of the foreign law would violate an individual’s right guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Alaska or the United States Constitution.	Approved by House State Affairs Committee 3/17/11. Approved by House Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Died in House Finance Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
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.”	Signed into law by governor 4/12/11.	No
Arizona HB 2582	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Approved by House Judiciary Committee 2/17/11. Died in House Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona HCR 2033 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state’s courts shall not consider, enforce or otherwise incorporate into any decision on the merits the legal precepts of other nations or cultures that run counter to the laws of this state unless expressly ratified by bicameralism and presentment in the state legislature or duly ratified as a treaty by the Senate of the United States. Provides state courts shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of this state, The United States Code, federal regulations adopted pursuant to the United States code, established common law, the laws of this state and rules adopted pursuant to the laws of this state and, if necessary, the laws of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not incorporate directly or by reference international law or the precepts of nations or cultures.	Died in House when legislature adjourned.	No
Arizona SCR 1010 (Constitutional Amendment)	Requires courts, when making judicial decisions, to uphold and adhere to the laws of the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution, U.S. Code, Federal regulations, established common law, Arizona laws and rules and if necessary, the laws of another state within the U.S. provided the laws in the other state do not include international law. Prohibits Arizona courts from considering international law or legal precepts of other nations or cultures when making judicial decisions.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SJR 10 (Constitutional Amendment)	(Placeholder bill) Declares “The purpose of this Senate Joint Resolution is to amend the Arkansas Constitution concerning the application of foreign laws, legal codes, or systems for the purpose of protecting rights and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution.”	Died in Senate Committee on State Agencies and Governmental Affairs when legislature adjourned.	No
Arkansas SB 97	Prohibits any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Arkansas Constitution	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Florida HB 1273	Defines term “foreign law, legal code, or system”; specifies public policy of this state in applying choice of foreign law, legal code, or system. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Florida SB 1294	Specifies the public policy of this state in applying the choice of a foreign law, legal code, or system under certain circumstances. Declares that certain decisions rendered under such laws, codes, or systems are void.	Approved by Senate Judiciary Committee 4/4/11. Indefinitely postponed and withdrawn from consideration 5/7/11.	No
Georgia HB 45	Provides “the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia HB 242	Declares “‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in a jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, administrative agency, or other tribunal 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.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Georgia SB 51	Provides that no court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other tribunal shall enforce a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States	Died in Senate Committee on the Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Indiana HB 1078	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 298	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SB 520	Prohibits the enforcement of a foreign law (defined as a law established and used outside the jurisdiction of the United States) if the enforcement would violate a right granted by the Indiana or United States constitution.	Approved by full Senate 2/17/11. Died in House Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Indiana SJR 16 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides a court may not enforce a law, rule, or legal code or system established and either used or applied in a jurisdiction outside the states of the United States, the District of Columbia, or the territories of the United States if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by this constitution or the Constitution of the United States.	Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	No
Iowa HB 489	Defines “foreign law, legal code, or system” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a person in this state is whether the decision rendered violated any right of the person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the Constitution of the United States, or any statute enacted or decision issued under the constitution of the state of Iowa or the United States.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HB 575	Enacts “Iowa Freedom and Sovereignty Act.” Defines “Foreign law” as “any law enacted by a jurisdiction or a governmental or quasi-governmental body other than the federal government or a state of the United States. “Foreign law” includes a religious law, legal code, accord, or ruling promulgated or made by an international organization, tribunal, or formal or informal administrative body.” Provides “any foreign law or other law that is in conflict with the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, or the Constitution of the State of Iowa shall not have force or effect in this state…It is the public policy of this state that the only factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator, or other person acting under authority of this state’s laws shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law that affects a sovereign citizen of this state is whether the decision violates the sovereign citizen’s rights under the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State of Iowa.”	Died in House State Government Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Iowa HJR 14 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides the state courts “when exercising judicial power, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Iowa, the United States Code, federal regulations, established common law, the Iowa Code, the Iowa administrative code, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not use the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Kansas HB 2087	Defines “foreign law,” “legal code” or “system” means any law, legal code or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals. Provides “Any court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights and privileges granted under the United States and Kansas constitutions.”	Approved by full House 3/30/11. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary when legislature adjourned.	Probably
Maine HB 811	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code or legal system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, that is applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies or other formal or informal tribunals…The primary factor that a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law must consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under a foreign law, legal code or legal system against a natural person in this State is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this State guaranteed by the Constitution of Maine or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those constitutions.”	Rejected by Joint Committee on Judiciary 5/25/11.	No
Michigan HB 4769	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “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.”	In House Committee on Judiciary.	Probably
Michigan SB 701	Defines “foreign law,” as “any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals.” Provides “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.”	In Senate Committee on Government Operations.	Probably
Mississippi HB 301	Prohibits courts from enforcing a foreign law if doing so would violate a right guaranteed by the Constitution of this state or of the United States.	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Mississippi HB 525	Provides “”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.”	Died in House Judiciary A Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 708	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision violates the public policy of this state and shall be void and unenforceable if such court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of this state and the United States.	Approved by full House 4/20/11. Died on House Informal Calendar when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HB 768	Defines “foreign law” as “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.” Provides “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.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri HJR 31 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides state courts “when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Missouri, the United States Code, federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, and if necessary the law of another state of the United States, provided the law of the other state does not include Sharia law, in making judicial decisions. The courts shall not look to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider international law or Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including but not limited to cases of first impression.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Missouri SB 308	Defines “”foreign law, legal code, or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Missouri constitutions.”	Approved by Senate Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence Committee 4/28/11. Died on Senate floor when legislature adjourned.	No
Nebraska LB 647	Declares a court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings on any foreign law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decisions the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Nebraska.	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
New Mexico SJR 18 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “The courts provided for in this article, when exercising their judicial authority, shall uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States constitution, the constitution of New Mexico, statutes of the United States and federal regulations adopted pursuant thereto, established common law, New Mexico statutes and state regulations adopted pursuant thereto and, if necessary, the law of another state of the United States, provided that the law of the other state does not include Sharia law. The courts shall not consider or apply a rule of comity to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, international law, laws promulgated by foreign governments or national laws of foreign countries if the consideration or application of the foreign precepts or laws would violate the public policy of the state of New Mexico or reduce or impair the rights of any resident of the state of New Mexico existing under New Mexico statutes or common law governing child custody, rights of married persons, property rights, protection from domestic violence or any criminal law. The courts shall not consider or apply Sharia law. The provisions of this section shall apply to all cases before the respective courts, including, but not limited to, cases of first impression.”	Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
New Jersey AB 3496	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Carried over from 2011 session. In House Judiciary Committee.	No
North Carolina HB 640	Declares “it to be the public policy of this State to protect its citizens from the application of foreign law that would result in the violation of a right of a natural person guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution or the United States Constitution. The public policies expressed in this section shall apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of a constitutional right resulting from the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Committee on Judiciary Subcommittee C when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Oklahoma HB 1552	Provides any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision shall violate the public policy of this state and be void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, rule, legal code or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the United States and Oklahoma Constitutions.	Approved by full House 3/17/11. Died in Senate Rules Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Carolina HB 3490	Provides “As used in this section, the term “foreign law” means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories…A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Carolina SB 444	Provides “As used in this section, the term ‘foreign law’ means any law, rule, or legal code or system established and used or applied in or by another jurisdiction outside of the United States or its territories….A court, arbitrator, administrative agency, or other adjudicative, mediation, or enforcement authority may not enforce a foreign law if it would violate a constitutionally guaranteed right of this State or of the United States. The provisions of this section apply only to actual or foreseeable violations of the constitutional rights of a person caused by the application of the foreign law.”	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Probably
South Dakota HJR 1004 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides no South Dakota state court may apply international law, the law of any foreign nation, or any foreign religious or moral code with the force of law in the adjudication of any case under its jurisdiction.	Tabled by Senate Judiciary Committee 2/17/11.	No
South Dakota SB 201	Declares “foreign law, legal code, or system, means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…Any court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency ruling or decision is void and unenforceable if the court, arbitration, tribunal, or administrative agency bases its rulings or decisions in the matter at issue in whole or in part on any law, legal code, or system that would not grant the parties affected by the ruling or decision the same fundamental liberties, rights, and privileges granted under the constitutions of the United States and the State of South Dakota.”	Deferred to 41st legislative day (i.e. killed) by Senate Commerce and Energy Committee 2/16/11.	No
Texas HB 274	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 5/10/11. 4/18/11. Removed by Senate State Affairs Committee 5/23/11.	No
Texas HB 911	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence 4/18/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 999	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 1240	Declares “”foreign or international law or doctrine” means a law, rule, legal code, or principle of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States, including international law, that is not codified or recognized by this state or the United States…A court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not base a ruling or decision on a foreign or international law or doctrine; or a prior ruling or decision that was based on a foreign or international law or doctrine.”	Approved by House Select Committee on State Sovereignty 5/10/11. Died in House Calendars Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 3027	Declares “”foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”.	Died in House Committee on Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HJR 57 (Constitutional Amendment)	Provides “A court of this state shall uphold the laws of the Constitution of the United States, this Constitution, federal laws, and laws of this state. A court of this state may not enforce, consider, or apply any religious or cultural law.”	Died in House State Affairs Committee when legislature adjourned.	No
Texas HB 79A (Special Session)	AS AMENDED: Provides “In this chapter, “foreign law” means a law, rule, or legal code of a jurisdiction outside of the states and territories of the United States…A ruling or decision of a court, arbitrator, or administrative adjudicator on a matter arising under the Family Code may not be based on a foreign law if the application of that law would violate a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution or the constitution of this state.”	Approved as amended by full House 6/22/11. Removed by Senate Jurisprudence Committee 6/27/11.	No
West Virginia HB 3220	Provides “”foreign law, legal code or system” means any law, legal code, or system of a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including, but not limited to, international organizations and tribunals, and applied by that jurisdiction’s courts, administrative bodies, or other formal or informal tribunals…It is the public policy of this state that the primary factor which a court, administrative agency, arbitrator, mediator or other entity or person acting under the authority of state law shall consider in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code or system against a natural person in this state is whether the decision rendered either violated or would violate any right of the natural person in this state guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of West Virginia or the United States Constitution or any statute or decision under those Constitutions.”	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	Possibly
Wyoming HJR 8 (Constitutional Amendment)	Prohibits court use of sharia law. Prohibits Wyoming courts from referencing law of other U.S. states if law of the other state does include sharia law. Requires Wyoming courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the constitution of the United States, the Wyoming constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, laws of this state, and established common law as specified by legislative enactment. Prohibits courts from considering the legal precepts of other nations or cultures including, without limitation, international law and Sharia law.	Died in House Judiciary Committee when legislature adjourned.	No

2010

Bill	Provisions	Status
Arizona HB 2379	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Arizona SB 1026	Enacts the “Arizona Foreign Decisions Act” Declares the acceptance of Arizona into the Union was a “compact”. Declares “Congress has no authority to preempt state regulation of state courts.” Prohibits courts from implementing, referring or incorporating or using “a tenet of any body of religious sectarian law” and specifically includes sharia law, canon law, halacha and karma, but exempts decisions based on Anglo-American legal tradition, laws or case law from Great Britain prior enactment of the statute, or the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, “and the principles on which the United States was founded.” Prohibits use of any case law or statute from a non-U.S. jurisdiction or “foreign body”, including the United Nations. Decisions that make use of a body of religious sectarian law or foreign law declared void and usages declared to be grounds for impeachment. Declares these provisions apply to Federal courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction. Requires any court that construes this statute must do so in a way to confine the power of Congress and the federal judiciary.	Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Florida SB 1962	AMENDED: Directs courts to consider as a “primary factor” the preservation of a person’s constitutional rights, when interpreting, enforcing, or applying any foreign court decision, choice of foreign law contract provision, or choice of foreign venue or forum contract provision that violates any right guaranteed by the Florida Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Provides that it is the public policy of the state that a court consider as a primary factor in granting comity to a decision rendered under any foreign law, legal code, or system against a natural person in Florida, whether the decision rendered violates or would violate any constitutional right of that person. Requires a court to deny a claim for forum non conveniens if the granting of such claim would likely violate the constitutional rights of the non-claimant. Provides an exception for application of the bill to corporations, partnerships, or other business associations and provides a severability clause.	Approved by Senate Commerce Committee 4/7/10. Died in Senate Committee on Judiciary.
Idaho HCR 44	Declares “For any domestic issue, no court should consider or use as precedent any foreign or international law, regulation, or court decision.”	Approved by full House 3/4/10. Approved by full Senate 3/26/10. Transmitted to Secretary of State for transmission to Congress, the President, and the other states.
Iowa HB 2313	Prohibits judges from using “judicial precedent, case law, penumbras, or international law as a basis for rulings.” Requires judges use only the U.S. and Iowa Constitutions and the Code of Iowa in making decisions. Permits use of the Federalist papers and other writings of the founding fathers, but only “if such source material is used in full context. Prohibits any court from reviewing the legislation. Deems any violation of the act grounds for impeachment.	Died in House Judiciary Committee.
Louisiana HB 785	“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.	Signed into law by Governor 6/29/10.
Louisiana 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.	Signed into law by Governor 7/2/10.
New Jersey AB 3496	Provides that a foreign law may only be recognized by a court in New Jersey if it does not violate any right guaranteed by the Constitution of this State or of the United States of America.	Died in House Judiciary Committee. Carried over into 2011 session.
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.	Approved by voters in November 2010 election.
South Carolina SB 1387 (Constitutional Amendment)	Requires South Carolina Courts uphold and adhere to the law as provided in the United States Constitution, the South Carolina Constitution, the United States Code and federal regulations promulgated pursuant to it, and the South Carolina statutes and rules adopted and regulations promulgated pursuant to it, and in doing so, shall rely only on those sources, and if necessary for the determination of a particular case, the laws, rules, regulations, and cases of another state of the United States, in making judicial decisions. Prohibits courts from looking to the legal precepts of other nations or cultures. Specifically, the courts shall not consider Sharia Law, international law, the constitutions, laws, rules, regulations, and decisions of courts or tribunals of other nations, or conventions or treaties, whether or not the United States is a party.	Died in Senate Judiciary Committee.
Tennessee HB 3768	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.	Signed into law by Governor 5/27/10.
Tennessee 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.	Replaced by HB 3768.
Utah HB 296	Requires Utah courts to apply United States and Utah law in cases and controversies before them unless the foreign law sought to be applied would provide protection equal to or stronger than specific elements of United States and Utah law.	Approved by House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee 2/25/10. Died on House floor.

State-by-State 2011 Legislative Year in Review: Tennessee

Bill Raftery — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 17:20:53 +0000

New laws or resolutions affecting the courts enacted or adopted by the Tennessee legislature in 2011 include the following:

HB 2039 /SB 1775 Authorizes judges who complete certain firearms training to carry a weapon in courtrooms.

HB 1877 / SB 1798 Provides for revocation of driver license for nonpayment of litigation taxes, court costs or fines in certain circumstances. Provides payment plan option and hardship exemption.

HR 33 / SR 11 Approves amendments and revisions to the Tennessee Rules of Evidence promulgated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

HR 34 / SR 12 Approves amendments and revisions to the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee

HR 35 / SR 13 Approves amendments and revisions to the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

HR 36 / SR 14 Approves amendments and revisions to the Tennessee Rules of Criminal Procedure promulgated by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.

2011 Southern indigent defense legislation

Bill Raftery — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:32:59 +0000

Law

Alabama HB 601 / SB 440 Repeals all existing laws with respect to indigent defense. Redefines “indigent defendant.” Provides for the unified administration of indigent defense services by the state. Ends practice of providing for indigent defense through the local presiding circuit judge, commission, or governing body administering the system. Creates statewide Office of Indigent Defense Services within the Finance Department and indigent defense advisory boards in each judicial circuit.

Arkansas HB 1004 Prohibits payment of attorney’s fees of privately retained attorneys for indigent persons.

Arkansas HB 2207 Provides funding for public defenders may come from a county’s administration of justice, general, public defender, indigent defense, or public defender investigator fund(s), or any other fund authorized by law for that purpose. Requires expenditures comply with an itemized, line-item budget.

Louisiana HB 178 Authorizes Dept. of Children and Family Services to transfer funds appropriated pursuant to existing law to unspecified entities for representation of children and indigent parents in child protection proceedings. Removes require that funds go only to those entities specified in existing law.

Mississippi HB 1302 / SB 2563 Consolidates Office of Capital Defense Counsel, Office of Indigent Appeals and Division of Public Defender Training into Office of State Public Defender. Repeals provision that Circuit Court may appoint local counsel in capital cases at the expense of the Capital Defense Counsel Special Fund.

Mississippi HB 506 Permits all public defenders to carry firearms in courthouses. (See also HB 881)

Mississippi HB 332 / SB 2697 Extends Public Defender Task Force until 2014.

Texas HB 1754 / SB 170 Creates within judicial branch the Texas Indigent Defense Commission. Transfers all powers and duties of Task Force on Indigent Defense to Commission and abolishes Task Force. Designates Commission a permanent standing committee of the Texas Judicial Council and administratively attached to the Office of Court Administration, but provides commission is to prepare, approve, and submit a Legislative Appropriations Request and maintain a budget structure separate from that of OCA. Establishes membership of governing board of the Commission. Sets sunset date for commission as September 2023. Requires certain indigent defense information to be submitted by November 1st of each odd numbered year. Requires each law school receiving innocence project funding to submit annual reports regarding exonerations in criminal cases. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the creation of public defender’s offices. Defines and authorizes local jurisdictions to establish managed assigned counsel programs as strictly a local option that would require both the judges and county commissioners court assent to implement. Repeals the “Indigent Representation Fund”, the court costs for which serve as a revenue stream to the Fair Defense Account, which serves the same purpose.

Texas HB 3323 / SB 1308 Allows for the review of attorneys who are no longer eligible to represent indigent defendants in capital cases due to a single finding of ineffective counsel. Provides determination will be made by the Regional Selection Committee, which includes an administrative law judge, a district judge, a representative from the local bar association, and a board-certified criminal attorney.

Adopted Resolution

Texas HCR 22 (Special Session) Commends the members of the Texas Supreme Court for their actions in support of legal aid services and honors them for their work in promoting access to justice for the state’s most vulnerable citizens.

Active/Carried over into 2012

Oklahoma SB 868 Specifies Indigent Defense System is only for indigents who are in custody. Provides a court may appoint legal representation for an indigent who is not in custody, in which case costs for such representation shall be paid from the local court fund.

Oklahoma HB 2175 Restricts use of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System to defendants who are in custody. Provides a definition for “unable to employ counsel”.

Tennessee HB 1225 / SB 1279 Provides that if an attorney, post-conviction defender or district public defender in a criminal case is found to have provided ineffective assistance of counsel, that attorney cannot receive any further state funds for legal services until the attorney obtains continuing education, counseling or training that addresses the reason for the attorney being ineffective.

Tennessee HB 1623 / SB 1574 Removes the requirement that the Executive Director of the District Public Defenders Conference (DPDC) administer the accounts of the judicial branch of government relating to the DPDC; prepare, approve, and submit budget estimates and appropriations necessary for the maintenance and operation of the offices of district public defenders; approve all requisitions for the payment of public moneys appropriated for the maintenance and operation of the judicial branch of government; audit claims, and prepare vouchers for payment; and provide the district public defenders with minimum law libraries.

Approved by one chamber

Louisiana SB 270 Provides 10% of revenue generated from abandoned cars sold by court as result of littering conviction go toward indigent defender board. Approved by full Senate and House Natural Resources and Environment committee. Indefinitely postponed on House floor.

Mississippi SB 2945 Specifies public defender is authorized to assign the duties of all employees of the office without regard to the source of funding for those employees. Approved by full Senate, died in House Judiciary B committee.

Texas SB 1682 Authorizes the creation of a managed assigned counsel program by a locality with written approval of a judge of the juvenile court of a county or county court, statutory county court, or district court trying criminal cases. Approved by full Senate and House Criminal Jurisprudence committee. Died on House floor.

Died in committee

Arkansas HB 2146 Defines crime of “illegal disbursement of funds by a judge”. Makes illegal instances where judge makes payments for services rendered to a public defender, assistant public defender, prosecuting attorney, or deputy prosecuting attorney resulting from the exercise of that person’s official duties.

Arkansas SB 941 Provides public defenders must provide itemized bill with a detailed explanation of services rendered, time spent, and expenses incurred. Renames converts certificates of indigency into affidavits to be created by public defender commission. Increases from $100 to $250 maximum user fee payable to commission.

Arkansas SB 974 Designates public defender commission a criminal justice agency for purposes of access to the Arkansas Crime Information Center.

Mississippi HB 181 Sets hourly payment for indigent defense counsel as 80% of the hourly rate allowed in the Mississippi’s federal courts. Provides judge presiding in case may adjust the total requested payment to counsel in a case if the court finds that the number of hours claimed by counsel in that case is not reasonable.

Mississippi HB 153 Creates District Public Defender Pilot project.

Mississippi HB 978 Provides public defender salaries are to be same as county prosecutors.

Mississippi SB 2971 Authorizes loan forgiveness programs for education loans to encourage law students and other attorneys to choose careers in the area of public interest, including specifically public defenders and civil legal aid attorneys.

Texas HB 1475 Provides for longevity pay for assistant public defenders.

Texas HB 1392 Creates special $95 fee for sale of property at a foreclosure sale to pay for civil legal services to the indigent.

Texas HB 2174 / SB 726 Establishes judicial access and improvement account to provide funding for basic civil legal services, indigent defense, and judicial technical support through certain county service fees and court costs imposed to fund the account. (See also Special Session HB 34 / SB 23)

Texas HB 1918 / SB 1028 Requires a district court judge to appoint one attorney, rather than two, when a capital felony case is filed. Provides in cases where prosecutors do not seek the death penalty a second attorney will not be required to be appointed.