GREENSBORO, N.C. (Legal Newsline) - The governing body for North Carolina judges is fighting back against a lawsuit from a state Supreme Court justice who accuses it of retaliating against her for her comments on diversity.
The North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission on Oct. 6 in filed a motion to dismiss the complaint brought by Justice Anita Earls, arguing the dispute does not belong in federal court.
Earls claims the commission initiated an investigation after she spoke publicly about a lack of judicial clerks from racial minority groups, violating her First Amendment rights. The commission says it sent her a letter notifying her of the confidential probe on Aug. 15, but she chose not to have the issue sorted in private and instead filed suit in federal court.
The commission had already initiated an investigation on March 20 into allegations Earls revealed confidential deliberations from a Supreme Court conference. Three months later, in an article in Law360, Earls expressed her concern over what she sees as a lack of diversity in the state's courts, prompting the second investigation.
Earls said in the article that "new members of our court very much see themselves as a conservative block" with an "allegiance... to their ideology, not to the institution."
The commission seeks to invoke the Younger abstention doctrine to keep the matter before it and out of federal court.
"(T)he proceeding is ongoing; North Carolina has a vital interest in protecting the integrity of its judicial system; and the Commission's proceeding offers Plaintiff adequate opportunity to raise her First Amendment challenges," the motion to dismiss says.
"Finally, there are no extraordinary circumstances that would justify the Court's interference in the ongoing proceeding."
The motion also claims Earls has failed to assert a "legally cognizable" claim.
"Plaintiff alleges that the Commission has initiated this investigation in retaliation for engaging in protected First Amendment activity," the motion says. "To state such a claim, Plaintiff must establish that she has suffered an adverse action due to her speech.
"A confidential investigation is not an adverse action."