Underfunded Courts Will Erode Justice

This granite courthouse in the Bronx took a decade to
build (1905-1915) and has been abandoned since 1978.

Achieving justice in the United States is never a given.  There are many factors that affect an outcome in the courthouse: the relative skills of the attorneys; the time a matter takes to get to trial; the personality of the judge; the backlog of the judge's docket.

One factor becoming increasingly important in the determination of justice is the funding [or lack thereof] for the judiciary.

Here in Michigan, there are budget-conscious proposals to eliminate trial judges, court of appeals judges, and to shrink the Michigan Supreme Court from 7 to 5 justices.

Referred to as the weakest branch of government in the Federalist Papers due to its inability to control either sword or purse, the judiciary must now fight for its fiscal life here in America, both at the federal level, and on a state-by-state basis, as legislatures scramble to shrink all government budgets.

Here in Oakland County, the county executive, Brooks Patterson, runs a very tight fiscal ship.  He has demanded that the courthouse balance its budget; in turn, they have accounted for nearly every penny spent in the courthouse, saving wherever possible.

Patterson's plan has meant a slow attrition among the corps of judicial clerks and other court staff.  At the Oakland County Probate Court, this has translated to juggled counter hours and longer lines.  Overall, however, the Oakland County Circuit Court's service to the public has not suffered.  How long, we wonder, can this continue?

If you have not been to the Macomb County Circuit Court in a while, don't plan your business for the afternoon if it's a Tuesday or Thursday; the clerk's office will be closed.

Elsewhere, courts have not fared nearly so well.  In California, for example, $350 million has been cut from the county trial courts since 2009, with even more cuts due by the end of the year.  The Economist reported last week that up to 48% of California's county trial courts could be rendered insolvent by the state's budget crisis.

One result of the cuts to courts in California is lengthening the time an uncontested divorce takes to process through the court system; from 6 to 18 months.  Trained court staff is needed to process such cases without delay.

In New York, the judges, not having seen a legislated pay raise since the turn of the century, have sued the political branches of their state government.  In Ohio, the Morrow County Municipal Court went to a 4-day work week in 2009 and stopped taking new cases for filing because the county failed to requisition sufficient paper.

Some quick stats compiled by the American Bar Association regarding the state of the state judiciaries:

• 26 states have stopped filling judicial vacancies; 
• 34 states have stopped filling judicial clerkships; 
• 31 states have frozen judges' or clerks' salaries; 
• 14 states have closed courts during weekdays; and 
• 3200 courthouses have been characterized as "physically eroded" or "functionally deficient".

According to ABA, "the underfunding of the judicial system threatens the fundamental nature of our tripartite system of government."  To borrow a cliche that also captures the spirit of this problem: "justice delayed is justice denied."

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com

Boozy Bears & MIPs

As Halloween approaches, here's an adult trick that's been going around; add a pint of vodka to some gummy bears and, viola; you have a batch of Boozy Bears.

The problem arises, however, when teens get their hands on the alcohol soaked candy.  Now, any gummy-munching teen will come under suspicion for being a minor in possession [of alcohol].

There are legitimate web sites for adults, that instruct party-goers how to make a batch of the Boozy Bears.  Effortlessly; just add Stoli.

These sites have had millions of hits on the Internet.  Things that are harmful to teenagers are all over the web.  Fortunately, several news stations recently splashed Boozy Bear warning segments across their evening newscasts.

So, be on the lookout...

Teenagers charged with an MIP have options.  Contact a local attorney if you are your family member has been charged.  And in the meantime, stay away from the Boozy Bears.

www.waterfordlegal.com

info@waterfordlegal.com

SCOTUS Opens Term with First Amendment Case from Michigan

The church can fire its priest, but can it fire the altar boy?

The case of Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v EEOC is one of the first cases to be argued in the 2011-2012 SCOTUS term that opens today in Washington D.C. This First Amendment freedom of religion case arises from an employment dispute at a now-defunct church in Redford, MI.

The issue in the case is the scope of the long-recognized exception to the federal employment discrimination laws when it comes to hiring or firing the clergy for a church, synagogue, or mosque.  This so-called "ministerial exception" has been recognized by all 12 federal appellate courts with the authority to hear such cases, as well as the supreme courts of 10 states.

The rationale behind the exception is that religious organizations, under the freedom of religion, should be allowed to make their own decisions about hiring and firing clergy, without concern of the normal anti-bias laws.  The question to be argued before SCOTUS on Wednesday morning is how deep into the staff and the payroll this ministerial exception goes.

Most religious institutions want the freedom to make all staffing decisions without concern for federal employment law; not just decisions relating to the pastor, the priest, the rabbi or the imam.  They are pushing for a flat-out ban on all anti-bias laws for any staffing decisions.

The Solicitor General asserts that, to the extent it is recognized, the church's interpretation of the exception is too broad.  Church staff members, the federal government will argue, are protected by federal and state employment laws.

The Hosanna-Tabor Church case involves a parochial school teacher who was fired allegedly because of her numerous disability-related complaints; the claim is that her firing by the church-school was retaliatory.  If the High Court considers her to be the equivalent of a clergy member, then she cannot seek the shelter of the Americans with Disabilities Act; if she is deemed to be a mere staffer, then she is entitled to protection under the applicable laws.

SCOTUS has seen disputes akin to this in prior petitions.  One of the reasons the Redford, MI church's petition may have been selected is because it was prepared and filed by University of Virginia Law School's Professor Douglas Laycock; one of the nation's leading experts on church-state law.

Our First Amendment jurisprudence continues to grow ever richer.  Stay tuned for the result.

www.clarkstonlegal.com

info@clarkstonlegal.com