Moore v. Alabama Judicial Inquiry Commission
234 So.3d 458 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judge violates the canons of judicial ethics by issuing an administrative order that intentionally directs subordinate judges to disregard a binding federal court injunction and controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thereby failing to uphold the integrity of the judiciary and respect the law.
Facts:
- In January 2015, a U.S. District Court judge, Judge Granade, declared Alabama's laws prohibiting same-sex marriage unconstitutional and issued an injunction against their enforcement.
- In response, Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore sent letters to the governor and probate judges asserting that the federal court's orders were not binding.
- In February 2015, Chief Justice Moore issued an administrative order directing probate judges not to issue any marriage license inconsistent with Alabama's laws banning same-sex marriage.
- In June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
- Following Obergefell, Judge Granade clarified that her injunction was in effect and binding on all Alabama probate judges.
- On January 6, 2016, Chief Justice Moore issued another administrative order to all probate judges stating that the Alabama Supreme Court's previous orders prohibiting same-sex marriage licenses 'remain in full force and effect.'
- This order intentionally omitted any mention of Judge Granade's binding federal injunction and misrepresented the nationwide scope of the Obergefell decision.
- After issuing the January 6 order, Moore participated in a related case before the Alabama Supreme Court concerning the effect of Obergefell, rather than recusing himself.
Procedural Posture:
- The Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) filed a six-count complaint against Chief Justice Moore in the Alabama Court of the Judiciary, alleging violations of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.
- Upon the complaint's filing, Moore was automatically disqualified from acting as a judge, with pay, pending the outcome.
- The Court of the Judiciary conducted a trial and found by clear and convincing evidence that Moore had violated the Canons of Judicial Ethics on all six counts.
- The Court of the Judiciary unanimously suspended Moore from office without pay for the remainder of his term.
- Chief Justice Moore, as appellant, appealed the judgment of the Court of the Judiciary to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a chief justice violate the Canons of Judicial Ethics by issuing an administrative order directing state probate judges to enforce state laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, in direct contravention of a binding federal court injunction and controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A chief justice violates the Canons of Judicial Ethics by issuing an administrative order that directs subordinate judges to defy binding federal court orders and controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The court rejected Chief Justice Moore's argument that his January 6, 2016 order was merely a 'status update,' finding it was not credible. Instead, the court found the order's use of caselaw was 'incomplete, misleading, and manipulative,' and its intentional omission of the binding federal injunction and the true holding of Obergefell revealed its clear purpose: to 'order and direct the probate judges... to stop complying with binding federal law.' This conduct violated Canons 1 (upholding judicial integrity), 2 (avoiding impropriety and respecting the law), and 3 (performing duties impartially), as it was prejudicial to the administration of justice and undermined public confidence in the judiciary. By taking a public position on a matter pending before his own court, he was also ethically obligated to recuse himself from subsequent proceedings on that issue, which he failed to do.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reaffirms the principle of federal supremacy under Article VI of the U.S. Constitution, establishing that state judicial officers, regardless of rank, are bound by the decisions of federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court. It clarifies that a judge's administrative authority cannot be used as a shield to defy substantive law or to instruct lower courts to do so. The case serves as a significant precedent in the realm of judicial ethics, demonstrating that a judge's duty to uphold the law and maintain judicial integrity supersedes personal or political objections to that law, and that a failure to do so can result in severe sanctions, including effective removal from office.
