894 F.3d 900
8th Cir.2018Background
- Judge Wendell Griffen, an Arkansas circuit judge and Baptist minister, publicly opposed the death penalty and issued a temporary restraining order in a drug-distributor lawsuit related to upcoming executions.
- The Arkansas Attorney General sought his recusal; the Arkansas Supreme Court issued Order No. 17-155 reassigning all death-penalty and execution-protocol cases from Griffen and referred him for disciplinary review.
- Griffen sued the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Justices in federal court alleging First Amendment retaliation (speech and free exercise), violation of the Arkansas RFRA, procedural due process, equal protection (racial discrimination), and civil conspiracy.
- The district court dismissed claims against the Arkansas Supreme Court (sovereign immunity) and denied the Justices’ motions to dismiss the remaining claims; it stayed discovery pending appeal.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court Justices petitioned the Eighth Circuit for mandamus to vacate the denial of their Rule 12(b)(6) motions and to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.
- The Eighth Circuit granted mandamus, concluding none of Griffen’s six claims stated a plausible constitutional or statutory violation and ordering dismissal proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| First Amendment (speech retaliation) | Griffen: reassignment from death-penalty cases punished his protected public speech and chilled his rights. | Justices: recusal order concerns Griffen as a public employee (judge) and governs assignment of duties; Garcetti bars First Amendment claim for speech made in the scope of official duties; reassignment is not an adverse employment action. | Claim fails: speech not protected in this context; recusal not an adverse action. |
| First Amendment (free exercise) | Griffen: reassignment chills his religious exercise tied to anti-death-penalty religious advocacy. | Justices: order is neutral, generally applicable reassignment to avoid bias, does not target religious belief or practice. | Claim fails: order is neutral and does not burden protected exercise under Smith. |
| Arkansas RFRA | Griffen: order substantially burdens religious exercise and needs strict scrutiny under state RFRA. | Justices: Arkansas has compelling interests in judicial impartiality and public confidence; Griffen alleges no least-restrictive means. | Claim fails: compelling state interests support the reassignment and no less-restrictive alternatives alleged. |
| Procedural due process | Griffen: reassignment deprived him of property (assignments) and liberty (reputation) without process. | Justices: no protected property/right to particular case assignments under Arkansas law; reputation alone is not a protected liberty interest. | Claim fails: no cognizable property or liberty interest implicated. |
| Equal protection (race) | Griffen: he was treated worse than white judges in comparable situations; action motivated by race. | Justices: comparison judges were not similarly situated; plaintiff pleads no intentional racial discrimination. | Claim fails: no allegation of similarly situated comparators and no plausible intentional discrimination. |
| Civil conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1985) | Griffen: Justices conspired to deprive his constitutional rights. | Justices: conspiracy claim depends on an underlying constitutional violation; none exists. | Claim fails: because no underlying violation pleaded, conspiracy claim fails. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lombardi, 741 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (mandamus standard; extraordinary remedy to correct serious errors)
- Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) (mandamus and limits on interlocutory review)
- Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004) (mandamus requirements)
- Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (speech pursuant to official duties not protected by First Amendment)
- Bauer v. Shepard, 620 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2010) (recusal clause applies to judges as public employees; states may assign judges to avoid appearance of partiality)
- Ligon v. City of New York, 736 F.3d 166 (2d Cir. 2013) (reassignment of cases for appearance of partiality does not itself create a Fifth Amendment due process injury)
- Employment Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability do not violate Free Exercise Clause)
- Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, 135 S. Ct. 1656 (2015) (public confidence in judicial integrity is a compelling state interest)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009) (public confidence in judicial fairness is a vital state interest)
- Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (reputation alone is not a protected liberty interest for due process claims)