Alabama Justice Tom Parker Challenges Speech Restriction and Removal Provision

MONTGOMERY, AL -- Today Liberty Counsel filed a response in the federal lawsuit on behalf of Tom Parker, Associate Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court. Justice Parker not only challenges the speech restriction Canon 3 on First Amendment grounds, but he also challenges the Alabama Constitution's automatic removal provision that requires judges be automatically removed when the Judicial Inquiry Commission (JIC) issues a charge.

---

A complaint against Parker was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claiming comments he made on the American Family Radio talk show regarding the U.S. Supreme Court's marriage opinion violated Canon 3(A)(6) of the Alabama Canons of Judicial Ethics. Canon 3(A)(6) purports to prohibit Alabama judges from making "any public comment about a pending or impending proceeding in any court," even if such proceeding is not pending before the judge making the comments, and even if the judge's comments do not have a reasonable likelihood of affecting the outcome or impairing the fairness of that proceeding. The provision is so broad it prohibits a judge who teaches law school students from commenting on any case pending in any court anywhere in the country. The American Bar Association has stated this broad speech restriction violates the First Amendment. Parker has not yet been charged with a violation of Canon 3. However, if he is charged, he would be automatically removed from the bench. He has filed a preemptive suit challenging both Canon 3 and the automatic removal provision. "When a judge can be removed before a hearing for exercising constitutionally protected free speech, the removal basis for such a charge and the automatic removal provision must be struck down," said Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel. "Obviously, the SPLC is intent on removing any judge with whom it disagrees, and the JIC is a willing accomplice. The Judicial Canon that prohibits judges from commenting on any case anywhere in the country is patently unconstitutional. Every judge who teaches law school students would be silenced by this broad restriction on speech. This speech restriction and the automatic removal provision must be struck down," said Staver.