Washington
Judge admonished for implying man would be raped in prison
SEATTLE (AP) — The Washington state Commission on Judicial Conduct has admonished a King County District Court judge for implying in court that a defendant would be raped in prison if he didn’t change his behavior.
The Seattle Times reports Judge Virginia Amato, who was elected in November 2018, presided over the arraignment of a man charged with misdemeanor domestic-violence assault and resisting arrest last August, according to the stipulation, agreement and order of admonishment signed June 24 by the commission’s executive director, J. Reiko Callner.
Before imposing conditions of release, Amato noted the man’s alleged crimes happened while he was on probation, the order says.
The man had no felony convictions, and could not be sent to prison for misdemeanors, yet Amato is quoted in the order as telling him he was setting himself up “to be Bubba’s new best girlfriend at the state penitentiary.”
“That may hopefully give you a graphic image to think about … And if you think I’m kidding, I’m not,” she reportedly said.
A confidential complaint was filed in October with the commission, which is responsible for reviewing and acting on complaints of judicial misconduct, and Amato was served with a statement of allegations in December, the order says.
Amato acknowledged that her statements to the defendant violated the Code of Judicial Conduct but said her comments, “while insensitive and thoughtless, were not motivated by bias or ill-will toward the defendant.”
The commission found that Amato violated rules requiring judges to uphold the integrity of the judiciary by avoiding impropriety or the appearance of impropriety and to maintain appropriate courtroom decorum.
The commission found it was an isolated event that was out of character. An admonishment is the least severe disciplinary action the commission can issue and is meant as a caution to a judge not to engage in certain proscribed behavior.
Missouri
Judge throwsout AG’s COVID-19 suit against China
CAPE GIRARDEAU, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit by Missouri Republican Attorney General Eric Schmitt that blamed China for the coronavirus pandemic.
U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh said in his 38-page ruling that in this case federal rules prohibit a sovereign foreign entity from being sued in American courts.
“All in all, the court has no choice but to dismiss this novel complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,” Limbaugh stated in the final line of the dismissal order. The judge noted earlier in the opinion that the civil suit against China is one of many filed “amidst the wreckage of the COVID-19 pandemic.”
Schmitt’s office said it would appeal the ruling.
The complaint filed in April 2020 alleges that Chinese officials are “responsible for the enormous death, suffering, and economic losses they inflicted on the world, including Missourians.” Schmitt said the Chinese government lied about the dangers of the virus and didn’t do enough to slow its spread.
China criticized the lawsuit as “very absurd” and said it has no factual and legal basis. Schmitt called the lawsuit historic, but legal experts mostly panned it as a stunt aimed at shifting blame to China for the COVID-19 pandemic.
Wisconsin
Court says parents suing school can’t be anonymous
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — A divided Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled Friday that parents suing the Madison School District over its gender identity policies must disclose their names to opposing attorneys, but they don’t have to be revealed to the district or be made public.
The 4-3 ruling comes after a Dane County Circuit Court judge in 2020 temporarily suspended portions of the district’s guidance on gender identity that a group of unnamed parents and a conservative law firm sued to overturn.
The case centers on a policy the district adopted in 2018 that calls for district personnel to call students by their preferred names and pronouns, and to not disclose students’ gender identities to anyone, including their parents. Some parents sued in 2020, alleging the policy violates their right to parent their children as they see fit and their right to religious freedom.
The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty and the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, both conservative law firms, are representing the parents. The firm’s attorneys asked Dane County Circuit Judge Frank Remington to allow them to proceed without revealing the parents’ names out of fear they would be subject to retaliation and harassment.
Remington ordered the firm to give the names to him and school district attorneys under seal. The firm refused, arguing that the district’s attorneys could leak the names and that their identities aren’t relevant. The firm has insisted that the parents are indeed Madison school district residents and, as such, have standing to sue.
The Supreme Court upheld Remington’s order and remanded the case back to him to continue deliberations on the merits.
Justice Brian Hagedorn, a conservative who often acts as a swing vote, sided with the court’s three liberal justices in upholding the order.
He wrote for the majority that court proceedings are presumed to be open to the public. The parents essentially want the justices to “reformulate” state law on anonymous litigation but nothing suggests the district attorneys would violate Remington’s seal order.
“While we protect certain vulnerable legal participants, such as children and crime victims, the business of courts is public business, and as such is presumed to remain open and available to the public,” he wrote. “In this case, the circuit court’s decision to withhold the parents’ identities from the public and the District, but not the District’s attorneys, was well within its discretion.”
Luke Berg, a deputy counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, called the ruling a disappointing loss and chided the majority for not ruling on the merits of the policy. He said the firm would talk to the parents and that it would be up to them to decide whether to continue to participate in the lawsuit.
“We do not consider this case done. Not by a long shot,” Berg said.
Roger Brooks, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, said the firm will discuss the effects of the ruling with the parents it represents but looks forward to proving in the circuit court that the district policy violates basic parental rights.
