X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
New York-A judge who was admonished for stating his position on abortion to help win an election cannot challenge his penalty in federal court. John LaCava, a state Supreme Court justice, claimed his 1999 admonishment by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct should be reversed because the U.S. Supreme Court, in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002), said candidates for judicial office cannot be stopped from informing the public about their views on controversial political issues. Federal Judge Colleen McMahon said she lacked jurisdiction because her review of LaCava’s case would violate the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which holds that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review claims involving direct review of state court decisions. McMahon also said the Supreme Court’s White decision does not apply retroactively to LaCava’s claim. Pro-life letter LaCava was a Westchester County Court judge in 1998 when he ran for a seat on the Supreme Court, New York’s trial-level court. During the campaign, he sent a letter to the Right-to-Life Party, an anti-abortion third party, describing himself as a “pro-life” candidate. The existence of that letter and other statements on his abortion position appeared in a newspaper article as he went on to win election. The commission charged him with violating the New York State Rules on Judicial Conduct, 22 NYCRR sections 100.1, 100.2 and 100.5(A)(4)(d)(i)-(ii), for making statements that committed or appeared to commit him with respect to cases, controversies or issues likely to come before the court. LaCava agreed to be admonished by the commission. But in 2002, months after the Supreme Court decided White, he asked the commission to reconsider, arguing that he would not have been disciplined under that ruling. When his application was denied, the judge filed suit, alleging that the commission’s refusal to reopen the case and vacate his admonition, in light of White, violated his First and 14th amendment rights. He also argued that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which is based on the notion that only the U.S. Supreme Court may review a state court decision, did not control. McMahon disagreed, saying that under the doctrine, the “true measure of the claim is best revealed by the relief sought.”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.