234 So. 3d 458
Ala.2017Background
- In 2015 federal district judge Callie Granade declared Alabama’s Sanctity of Marriage Amendment and Marriage Protection Act unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement; that injunction was later affirmed by the Eleventh Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell resolved the national issue.
- Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore repeatedly issued letters, memoranda, administrative orders, and public statements directing or advising probate judges not to issue same-sex marriage licenses consistent with Alabama law; notably a January 6, 2016 administrative order said Alabama Supreme Court orders "remain in full force and effect."
- The Judicial Inquiry Commission filed a six-count complaint charging Moore with violating multiple Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics for (among other things) directing judges to ignore binding federal decisions, deciding substantive law in an administrative capacity, interfering with other courts’ processes, and failing to recuse.
- The Court of the Judiciary found by clear and convincing evidence that Moore violated Canons 1, 2, 2A, 2B, 3, and 3A(6) across the counts (I–VI), concluding his January 6 order was an intentional, misleading directive conflicting with federal law and that he should have recused; it imposed suspension without pay for the remainder of his term (unanimous; removal lacked unanimous vote).
- Moore appealed to a specially constituted Alabama Supreme Court, which affirmed the Court of the Judiciary in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (JIC) | Defendant's Argument (Moore) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction of JIC/Court of the Judiciary to investigate an administrative order | JIC: Investigation concerns alleged judicial misconduct, not appellate review; JIC/Court have jurisdiction to assess conduct. | Moore: Only Alabama Supreme Court may review a Chief Justice administrative order. | Held: JIC/Court had jurisdiction to investigate the issuance and motivations of the order as conduct; they may not reverse the order but may adjudicate misconduct. |
| Sufficiency of evidence that January 6, 2016 order violated Canons (Counts I–V) | JIC: Order intentionally omitted binding federal authority, misled probate judges, directed disobedience of federal injunctions and Obergefell, and interfered with other courts. | Moore: Order was a neutral status update, gave no directive to defy federal law, left issues to the full Alabama Supreme Court. | Held: Clear and convincing evidence supported guilt on Counts I–V; the order was an intentional, misleading legal pronouncement and directive and violated multiple Canons. |
| Recusal and impartiality (Count VI) | JIC: Moore’s public legal positions in the January 6 order and identical reasoning in his later concurrence compromised impartiality; he should have recused. | Moore: He did not take a position on the effect of Obergefell and explicitly stated he could not give guidance. | Held: The order contained substantive legal positions later replicated in his opinion; objectively reasonable observers could question impartiality — guilty on Count VI. |
| Admissibility/use of Moore’s 2003 removal and related prior acts | Moore: Prior removal was improperly used as propensity evidence of guilt. | JIC: Prior acts admitted for limited purposes (knowledge, notice, sanction). | Held: Prior removal was admissible under Rule 404(b) for knowledge/notice and sanction consideration; its limited use was proper. |
| Suspension procedure and §159 due-process challenge | Moore: Automatic disqualification under §159 violates Fourteenth Amendment (deprivation without adequate process). | JIC: Rule procedures provide adequate notice and process; suspension with pay is permissible predisciplinary measure. | Held: Pre-disciplinary procedure satisfied due process (notice and opportunity to respond); suspension with pay pending proceedings is constitutionally permissible; issue addressed as one of public importance but not reversible. |
| Sanction severity and Rule 16 challenge | Moore: Suspension effectively removed him; sanction excessive and Rule 16 requirements for removal/suspension not followed. | JIC: Sanction within Court of the Judiciary’s discretion; appellate precedent forbids revising sanctions when supported by clear-and-convincing evidence. | Held: Sanction (suspension without pay remainder of term) affirmed; no reversible error and Rule 16 not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Searcy v. Strange, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1285 (S.D. Ala. 2015) (district court opinion invalidating Alabama same‑sex marriage prohibitions)
- Strawser v. Strange, 105 F. Supp. 3d 1323 (S.D. Ala. 2015) (district court injunction ordering issuance of marriage licenses)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015) (U.S. Supreme Court holding same‑sex couples have right to marry nationwide)
- Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) (federal‑court constitutional interpretations are binding on states)
- Moore v. Judicial Inquiry Comm’n of Alabama, 891 So.2d 848 (Ala. 2004) (procedural background on JIC appeals and standards)
- Boggan v. Judicial Inquiry Comm’n, 759 So.2d 550 (Ala. 1999) (standard of review and presumption of correctness for Court of the Judiciary)
- In re Sheffield, 465 So.2d 350 (Ala. 1984) (disciplinary standards and review; canons application)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985) (pre‑termination due process: notice, explanation of evidence, and opportunity to respond)