All but one of the members of the Arkansas Supreme Court were charged last week with violating the state's judicial canons.
What's more, charges are pending against the seventh.
This is serious, unprecedented business.
Never in the 30-year history of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission have such charges been brought against any member of the state's highest court.
It has happened now, and that nine-member commission could, after a hearing, recommend a variety of actions against the justices it charged. The options range from public admonishment and reprimand to suspension or removal from the bench.
The commission's recommendations for the stronger actions must go to the Supreme Court. Since the justices are the ones being charged, they would have to recuse. A panel of special justices appointed by the governor would actually receive the recommendation and mete out punishment, if any.
All of this is well out of the ordinary. And it arises from an unusual set of facts.
The disciplinary commission acted last week on a complaint from Pulaski County Judge Wendell Griffen.
Griffen is a Pulaski County circuit judge well known for his outspokenness. He is perhaps best recognized for a 2017 photograph of him purportedly strapped to a cot during a Little Rock demonstration against the death penalty.
The demonstration, staged in front of the Governor's Mansion, took place as Arkansas was preparing to carry out a series of executions, the first in more than a decade.
In the intervening months, that photo has reminded Arkansans of Griffen's objection to the death penalty over and over again as related court action has played out over the controversy.
Griffen, who is also a pastor, had acted in his judicial capacity the same day as the demonstration to block the state from using one of the drugs in its lethal injection protocol after the drug's manufacturer claimed it was misled by the state.
Within days, the Supreme Court reacted, taking Griffen off that lawsuit and blocking him from pending and future death penalty cases.
The court's action came on an appeal from the state's attorney general, who was trying to preserve the state's access to the lethal drug.
The Supreme Court is made up of Chief Justice Dan Kemp and associate justices Robin Wynne, Courtney Goodson, Josephine "Jo" Hart, Karen Baker, Rhonda Wood and Shawn Womack. Griffen's case again Womack is still pending, but the others have all been charged by the commission.
Ever since that 2017 demonstration and the resulting fallout, Griffen has been seeking redress in the courts and with the state judicial disciplinary commission.
What happened last week was some validation for Griffen's complaints, according to Griffen's attorney.
Commissioners said the Supreme Court never gave Griffen notice or an opportunity to be heard over his removal from death penalty cases. Nor did the justices give Griffen enough time to respond to the state's request to have him removed from the lawsuit over the drug used in lethal injections, according to the commission.
The justices will have 30 days to respond to the charges. If the charges stand, then they'll be entitled to a hearing before the full commission.
Meanwhile, Griffen plans to appeal an earlier decision in a federal lawsuit he filed against the justices, asserting his disqualification violated his constitutional rights.
A federal appeals court dismissed the lawsuit and Griffen now plans to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing his religious and free-speech rights have been violated.
And there's another matter to be resolved. That same disciplinary commission that acted against the state Supreme Court justices charged Griffin himself earlier in the year over the judge's demonstration against the death penalty.
A hearing that had been scheduled for Oct. 5 has now been postponed to March 22 because the investigator on the case has received military orders that will make her unavailable until February 2019.
It will be awhile, but, eventually, all of these issues will be resolved as the actions of the judge and the justices get closer scrutiny.
Commentary on 09/26/2018