Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
California judges who are members of the Boy Scouts of America don’t have to leave the organization, the state’s high court said Wednesday, but they’ll have to disclose their membership and even disqualify themselves from particular cases “in some instances.” The court — responding to bar groups who raised the appropriateness of judges associating with groups such as the Boy Scouts, which openly discriminates against gays — declined to change the state’s judicial ethics codes allowing membership in youth groups that practice invidious discrimination. But, the court said, judges “should disqualify” themselves from cases “when doing so would be appropriate.” “Even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification,” the court’s order added, “the judge should disclose the membership to the parties or their lawyers if the judge believes they may consider it relevant to the question of disqualification.” Also on Wednesday, the high court proposed amendments to the judicial canons that would provide guidelines for campaign statements by judicial candidates, strengthen the rules against judicial statements or actions that could be considered sexual harassment and establish under what circumstances bond ownership might disqualify a judge from a case. The decision on judges’ memberships, however, was the biggest of the day and garnered a mildly positive reaction by those who had hoped for an outright ban. Jeffrey Bleich, president of the Bar Association of San Francisco, which originally asked the court to prohibit judges from participating in the Boy Scouts, called the order “an important step forward.” “We had asked for the elimination of the exemption [that allows judges to associate with youth organizations that discriminate],” said Bleich, a partner in the San Francisco office of Los Angeles’ Munger, Tolles & Olson. “But I believe this accomplishes a lot of the same objectives.” Gay rights lawyer Jon Davidson said the order will complicate judges’ lives. “Unfortunately, the court did not establish as clear a bright line as would have been more desirable,” said Davidson, senior staff attorney in the L.A. office of New York’s Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund. “What they said was judges can belong to youth organizations that discriminate so long as doing so would not make a reasonable person doubt the judges’ impartiality.” He said it seems clear that “in any case where sexual orientation is at issue or there is possibly a gay party, lawyer, witness or juror, that the judge’s capacity to be impartial would be in doubt if the judge belongs to an organization that’s committed to discrimination based on sexual orientation.” BASF and three other county bar associations had asked Chief Justice Ronald George to amend the rules and prohibit judicial membership in biased groups after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, which lets the youth group exclude gays. They specifically wanted the court to eliminate the Boy Scouts’ exemption to the judicial canon that bars judges from associating with groups that practice “invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin or sexual orientation.” In its order Wednesday, the high court said it found no reason to change the canon after reviewing “the requests and supporting materials, the numerous letters and other communications” it had received after announcing it would review the canons. Instead, the court said, it decided it would be best to add language to the commentary that accompanies the canons making clear that “even when membership in a particular organization is permitted,” the judge should disqualify him or herself when appropriate. At the very least, the court said, the judge should disclose membership when “the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might consider this information relevant.” Both Davidson and Bleich said the disclosure language would let lawyers raise either a peremptory challenge or a challenge based on cause. “The lawyers could bring the motion at any time if they believe there is reason,” Davidson said. Bleich noted that, over time, forced disclosure would let the public know how many judges are involved in discriminatory groups based not only on sexual orientation, but also those biased on the basis of race, gender or ethnic origin. That could have ramifications, said Gerald Uelmen, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law. “I would think that a careful judge would seriously rethink membership in an organization in light of these requirements,” he said. “If you’re exposing yourself to a requirement that you almost routinely disclose your membership, I think many judges will reconsider the membership itself. “It would raise questions that they’d just as soon avoid,” Uelmen said. Among the proposed amendments, the court is considering changes that would clarify what kinds of statements judicial candidates could make during campaigns. In particular, the court wants to clarify that “false statements or misleading true statements” violate judicial ethics.

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.