Term: 2020
Docket: 19-309
Carney v. Adams
- Pro
19-309 CARNEY V. ADAMS DECISION BELOW: 922 F.3d 166 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: WHETHER RESPONDENT HAS DEMONSTRATED ARTICLE III STANDING. PRESS RELEASE OF MARCH 16, 2020 IN KEEPING WITH PUBLIC HEALTH PRECAUTIONS RECOMMENDED IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, THE SUPREME COURT IS POSTPONING THE ORAL ARGUMENTS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THE MARCH SESSION. 4/13/2020: ARGUMENT TO BE RESCHEDULED FOR THE OCTOBER TERM 2020 QUESTION PRESENTED: 1. Does the First Amendment invalidate a longstanding state constitutional provision that limits judges affiliated with any one political party to no more than a "bare majority" on the State's three highest courts, with the other seats reserved for judges affiliated with the "other major political party''? 2. Did the Third Circuit err in holding that a provision of the Delaware Constitution requiring that no more than a "bare majority" of three of the state courts may be made up of judges affiliated with any one political party is not severable from a provision that judges who are not members of the majority party on those courts must be members of the other "major political party," when the former requirement existed for more than fifty years without the latter, and the former requirement, without the latter, continues to govern appointments to two other courts? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 18-1045 CERT. GRANTED 12/6/2019
In the case of Carney v. Adams, 2020, a Delaware lawyer named James R. Adams challenged two provisions in the state's constitution that require a balance of political power on its courts. The first provision mandates that no more than half the members of any major court may be affiliated with one political party; and secondly, judgeships reserved for either Democrats or Republicans must be nearly evenly divided between them. Adams argued these rules violated his First Amendment rights because he was an independent voter who could not apply for judicial positions reserved for Democrats or Republicans. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against him stating that he lacked standing to sue as he had failed to show a concrete plan to apply for such position which would have been denied due to his party affiliation. Therefore, there was no actual injury suffered by him due to this rule and hence cannot challenge it.
In the dissenting opinion for Carney v. Adams, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case on grounds of standing but rather addressed it on its merits. She contended that Adams had adequately demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury by showing he was unable to apply for a judgeship due to his political affiliation, which is sufficient to establish standing under Article III. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority's view that Adams' decision not to apply did not constitute an injury; in her perspective, being barred from applying because of one’s party membership itself constitutes harm. Finally, she expressed concern over dismissing cases based on speculative or hypothetical injuries as this could potentially bar legitimate claims from reaching courtrooms.
