In re Judicial Qualifications Commission Formal Advisory Opinion No. 239
300 Ga. 291
| Ga. | 2016Background
- The Judicial Qualifications Commission (JQC) issued Formal Advisory Opinion No. 239 (Aug. 28, 2013) addressing Canon 2(A) (judges shall respect and comply with the law) and the constitutional right of public access to judicial proceedings.
- The Council of State Court Judges of Georgia asked the JQC to reconsider parts of Opinion No. 239; the JQC declined, and the Council petitioned the Georgia Supreme Court for review (filed July 10, 2015).
- The JQC initially conceded the Court’s authority to review its formal advisory opinions, then moved to dismiss claiming lack of authority; the Court rejected that jurisdictional argument.
- The Supreme Court held that it has authority (inherent and under JQC Rule 22) to review and direct reconsideration of JQC formal advisory opinions and that such review does not unconstitutionally impair the JQC’s disciplinary powers.
- On the merits, the Court concluded Opinion No. 239 correctly cites binding precedent on public access but improperly ventured into unsettled constitutional questions (e.g., blanket exclusion of children; security personnel inquiries), and directed the JQC to reconsider Opinion No. 239 consistent with the Court’s opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Council) | Defendant's Argument (JQC) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of Supreme Court to review JQC formal advisory opinions | Court may review; JQC Rule 22 contemplates review and Court has supervisory power | No authority—review requires a justiciable controversy; review would impair JQC’s constitutional discipline power | Court has authority to review under its inherent rulemaking/supervisory powers and JQC Rule 22; motion to dismiss denied |
| Whether JQC may opine on constitutional/statutory law in advisory opinions | JQC overreached by pronouncing constitutional limits beyond settled law | JQC defended its advisory framing and precedents cited | JQC may opine only insofar as constitutional/statutory principles are clear and settled; it may not resolve unsettled questions of law |
| Validity of blanket exclusion of children from courtrooms as unconstitutional (per Opinion 239) | Such exclusions violate public-access right | JQC claimed advisory authority to condemn such practices | Court: law is unsettled; exclusion of children is debatable—decision to admit/exclude children, without more, does not implicate Canon 2(A) |
| Whether security/court staff inquiries about purpose of visit constitute unconstitutional closure | Inquiry/prerequisite questioning is improper and may close access | JQC argued such practices are generally improper and security inquiries can be unconstitutional | Court: law is not clear and settled; reasonable security measures (including ID/inquiries in some courts) have been upheld; JQC should not declare such inquiries per se unconstitutional |
Key Cases Cited
- Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (public right of access to criminal trials)
- Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (right of public access test and standards)
- Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (six-factor test for closures of criminal proceedings)
- Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (public access and courtroom closure principles)
- Purvis v. State, 288 Ga. 865 (Georgia precedent on reasonable accommodation of public attendance)
- State v. Brown, 293 Ga. 493 (security measures and courthouse access discussed)
- In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, 265 Ga. 843 (Canon 2(A) — errors vs. misconduct)
- Leitch v. Fleming, 291 Ga. 669 (judicial misapplication of law and Code implications)
- Judicial Qualifications Comm. v. Lowenstein, 252 Ga. 432 (Supreme Court authority to prescribe judicial conduct)
- Wallace v. Wallace, 225 Ga. 102 (distinction between jurisdiction and other court powers)