[19-309] Carney v. Adams

Carney v. Adams

Justia (with opinion) · Docket · oyez.org

Argued on Oct 5, 2020.
Decided on Dec 10, 2020.

Petitioner: John C. Carney, Governor of Delaware.
Respondent: James R. Adams.

Advocates:

• Michael W. McConnell (for the petitioner)
• David L. Finger (for the respondent)

Facts of the case (from oyez.org)

James R. Adams is a resident of Delaware and member of that state’s bar. Adams considered applying for a judicial position but ultimately decided not to because the state required the candidate to be a Republican, and Adams was neither a Republican nor a Democrat.

Adams filed a lawsuit against the governor, challenging the provision of the Delaware Constitution that limits judicial service to members of the Democratic and Republican Parties. First, the district court held Adams had Article III (“constitutional”) standing as to some, but not all of the provisions, but that because he had prudential standing to the other provisions, it would consider his challenge as to all of them. Turning to the merits, the district court noted that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedent in Elrod v. Burns and Branti v. Finkel, a government employer may not make employment decisions based on political allegiance except with respect to policymakers. The court found that a judge’s job is to apply, rather than create, the law, and thus that judges do not fall within the policymaking exception of Elrod and Burns. As such, the court found the provision unconstitutional in its entirety.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed only as to the provisions for which Adams lacked Article III standing.

Question

1. Does the plaintiff in this case have Article III standing to challenge Delaware’s judicial service requirements?

2. Does a state law that effectively limits judicial service to members of the Democratic and Republican parties violate the First Amendment?

Conclusion

Because Adams had not shown that he was “able and ready” to apply for a judicial vacancy in the imminent future, he failed to demonstrate Article III standing to challenge the Delaware Constitution’s political balance requirement for appointments to the State’s major courts. Justice Stephen Breyer authored the unanimous (8-0) opinion of the Court.

Article III standing requires that an “injury in fact” be “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent.” In this context, Adams needed to show that he was likely to apply to become a judge in the reasonably foreseeable future, which required a showing that he was “able and ready” to apply. He did not adequately make this showing, supporting his claim only with two statements he made that he wanted to be a judge without other supporting evidence of his intent to do so. As such, his grievance is generalized and does not meet the requirement for an “injury in fact.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a concurring opinion expressing her agreement that Adams did not demonstrate Article III standing. In anticipation that the constitutional questions raised in the case were likely to be raised again, she highlighted two considerations that “may inform their answers”: the possibility of material difference between the “major party” requirement and the “bare majority” requirement, and a question of the severability of those two requirements.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.