Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 10-01-2016

Case Style:

In Re: Roy S. Moore, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama

Case Number: 46

Judge: Jeffrey T. Brock

Court: Alabama Court of the Judiciary, Montgomery County, Alabama

Plaintiff's Attorney: Not Available

Defendant's Attorney: Mat Staver

Description: Montgomery, AL - The Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission charged Roy S. Moore, chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, with violating judicial ethics by issuing an order in January 2016 stating that probate judges in Alabama had "a ministerial duty not to issue" marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Judge Moore was removed from office in 2003 over his refusal to obey judicial ruling ordering him to remove the Ten Commandments statute from the Alabama Judicial Building.


Final Judgment


At the outset , this court emphasizes that this case is concerned only with alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. This case is not about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted; indeed , we recognize that a majority of voters in Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same-sex marriage , as did a majority of states over the last 15 years . Moreover , this is not a case to review or to editorial ize about the United States Supreme Court 's June 2015 split decision in Obergefell v . Hodges , 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), a decision that some members of this court did not personally agree with or think was well reasoned. This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues.


This court convenes only "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission " as to alleged violations by judges of the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Alabama Supreme Court.1 See § 157, Ala. Const. 1901 (Off. Recomp. ). As this court stated in the 2003 action against Chief Justice Roy S. Moore:

"The Canons are not merely guidel ines for proper judicial conduct ; they are binding on all judges by the oath taken upon assuming office , and violations of the Canons can serve as the basis for disciplinary action. The charge or charges against a judge must be proved by clear and convincing evidence before any discipline may be imposed."

On May 6, 2016 , the Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission ("the JIC") filed a complaint with this court charging Chief Justice Roy S. Moore with violating the Canons of Judicial Ethics while in his capacity as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court .2 The JIC 's complaint alleges that Chief Justice Moore violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics in an order he issued on January 6, 2016 ("the January 6, 2016 , order "), and in his subsequent refusal to recuse himself in the March 4, 2016, decision of the Alabama Supreme Court in Ex parte State ex rel . Alabama Policy Institute, [Ms .

* * *

See: Final Order

Outcome: At the outset , this court emphasizes that this case is concerned only with alleged violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. This case is not about whether same-sex marriage should be permitted; indeed , we recognize that a majority of voters in Alabama adopted a constitutional amendment in 2006 banning same-sex marriage , as did a majority of states over the last 15 years . Moreover , this is not a case to review or to editorial ize about the United States Supreme Court 's June 2015 split decision in Obergefell v . Hodges , 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), a decision that some members of this court did not personally agree with or think was well reasoned. This court simply does not have the authority to reexamine those issues.
This court convenes only "to hear complaints filed by the Judicial Inquiry Commission " as to alleged violations by judges of the Canons of Judicial Ethics adopted by the Alabama

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: Editor's Comment: It seems to me that Judge Moore has forgotten with the United States is governed by laws and not men. He can believe anything that he wants but he swore to uphold the Constitution and should have resigned if he could not do so.



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: